ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st, 4th and 5th defendants in O.S. No. 344 of 2015, now pending on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani, questioning the order dated 17.07.2019 allowing I.A. No. 1376 of 2018, which Interlocutory Application had been filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. O.S. No. 344 of 2015 had been filed by the plaintiff, Loganathan, seeking partition and separate of 1/6th share in the 2 items of suit schedule property and also to restrain the defendants from dealing with the said properties. The 1st defendant, Muthusamy, is the father of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant, Baby @ Logeshwari. They were born to him through his 1st wife, Mallika. The 5th defendant, Sathiya, is the 2nd wife of the 1st defendant, Muthusamy and the 4th defendant, Devaraj, is their son.

3. The plaintiff has stated that he and his mother, Mallika are staying together. She had separated from the 1st defendant. Claiming that the 2 items of the suit property have an anscestral nucleus and complaining denial of rightful share, the suit had been filed seeking, as aforesaid partition and separate possession of 1/6th share. When the plaintiff demanded his share on 02.05.2015, the 1st defendant stated that he was the absolute owner of the properties. The plaintiff, thereafter on 01.06.2015, applied for certified copy of all documents registered with respect to the suit properties and came to know that grandfather had executed two settlement deeds on 07.11.2006 in favour of the 1st defendant with respect to the 1st and 2nd items of suit property. Later, the 1st defendant had executed a settlement deed dated 13.11.2014 in favour of the 5th defendant with respect to the 2nd item of suit property and another settlement deed dated 21.07.2015 in favour of the 4th defendant with respect to portion of the 1st item of suit property. The plaintiff, in the plaint, claimed that the three settlement deeds are nonest in law, and have no legal sanctity. The plaintiff had also filed certified copies of the settlement deeds executed by his grandfather in favour of the 1st defendant and the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 5th defendant.

4. Written statements were filed by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants. The 4th defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff then filed I.A. No. 1376 of 2018 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by including the reliefs of declaring that the 2 settlement deeds dated 07.11.2006 executed by his grandfather infavour of the 1st defendant and the settlement deeds dated 13.11.2014 and 24.07.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 5th and 4th defendants respectively were null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought amendment of the Resurvey number and extent of the 1st item of suit property and the valuation of the suit and the Court fees paid thereon. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the plaintiff stated that owing to inadvertence and oversight, he had not included the said reliefs and had wrongly described the 1st item of suit property while instituting the suit.

6. A counter was filed by the 4th defendant primarily pointing out that even in the plaint, the plaintiff had admitted that he came to know about the settlement deeds on 01.06.2015 when he applied for certified copies of the documents relating to the 2 items of suit property, and that therefore, the application was filed seeking to declare that the settlement deeds were null and void on 28.11.2018, and therefore seeking the said relief was barred by the law of Limitation.

7. This application came up for consideration before the learned Sub Judge, Bhavani, and by order dated 17.07.2019, the application was allowed. The learned Sub Judge observed that the suit was posted for cross examination of PW 1 and therefore no prejudice would be caused to the contesting defendants. It was fu