T. Mathivanan, J.

1. This memorandum of Civil Revision has been directed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 06.01.2012 and made in the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 47 of 2011 in A.S. No. 2 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi as against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.2010 in O.S. No. 99 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivakasi. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 99 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivakasi, whereas the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the defendants in the suit and the respondents in the appeal. The respondents 3 and 4 are the legal representatives of the first defendant Narayanasamy (since deceased).

2. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the revision petitioners may hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and the respondents be referred to as the respondents, wherever the context so require.

3. Heard Mr. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. N. DilipKumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. Kingsley Solomon, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

4. The appellants had filed a suit in O.S. No. 99 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivakasi as against the respondents seeking the relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and also for the consequential relief of permanent injunction. The respondents had contested the suit by filing their written statement.

5. On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned Trial Judge 'viz' the learned District Munsif, Sivakasi had proceeded to dismiss the suit on 19.11.2010. Having been aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal, the appellants (plaintiffs) had preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 2 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants had taken out an application in I.A. No. 47 of 2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission to amend the plaint by inclusion of the particulars detailed in the petition. This petition was contested by the respondents. After hearing both sides, the First Appellate Court had dismissed the petition.

6. While dismissing the petition, on 06.01.2012, the learned Subordinate Judge (Sivakasi) had placed reliance upon the following two decisions:-

(1) Kenchegowda (since deceased) by legal representatives vs. Siddegowda alias Motegowda, 1994 (4) SCC 294.

(2) Revajeety Builders and developers vs. Narayanasamy and sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84.

7. In Kenchegowda cited first supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the suit for declaration of title and injunction against the sale of property cannot be converted into one for partition merely on the basis of plaintiff's, application under Order 6 Rule 17, as the cause of action and reliefs being different in nature and this being so, a decree for partition could not have been granted on a mere application for amendment. It is also held that the relief of declaration and injunction are larger reliefs and smaller relief for partition could be granted is incorrect.

8. In Revajeety Builders and Developers cited second supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that an amendment changing the nature and character of the case cannot be allowed. Following the above decisions, the learned First Appellate Court Judge has found that since the proposed amendment changes the causes of action as well as the nature and character of the case and introduce a new relief also, the proposed amendment could not be allowed.

9. This Court has perused the averments of the plaint as well as the written statement filed by the parties to the suit. Based on their pleadings, the trial court had formulated as nearly as five issues of which, issue Nos. 1 and 4 are very much relevant.

Issue No. 1: Is it true