IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff has the right to alter, modify, add, or delete anything in the plaint with the court's permission, and the defendant cannot make alterations to the plaintiff's pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned Judge in Application No. 3662 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 547 of 2019.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the defendant as against the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned Judge in Application No. 3662 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 547 of 2019.

2. The respondent herein has filed the aforesaid suit in Civil Suit No. 547 of 2019 praying to pass a preliminary decree for partition of the suit A, B, C and D schedule properties by dividing them into 4 shares and allot 3 such shares to the plaintiff and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties in any manner to any third party or creating any third party interest in respect of the suit schedule properties.

3. Pending suit, the appellant/defendant has filed an Application in A. No. 3662 of 2021 in C.S. No. 547 of 2019 praying to include Schedule ‘E’ property, after Schedule ‘D’ property in page No. 13 of the plaint as set out in the judges summons of the application.

4. However, the learned Judge refused to entertain the aforesaid application and accordingly, dismissed the same, by the order dated 16.02.2022, which is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the appellant/defendant.

5. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to set out the plaint averments in brief, for effective adjudication of this appeal and the same are as follows:

(i) The respondent/plaintiff is none other than the wife of the appellant/defendant. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 24.05.1991 at K.S.R. Kalyana Mandapam, Koyambedu, Chennai as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of such wedlock, they were blessed with a son by name G.S. Krishnakumar, in the year 1992 and a female child by name G.S. Pavithra, in the year 1994.

(ii) According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant started his profession as an advocate, however, he could not sufficiently earn out of it. In the year 1991, it was decided to purchase a house site at Balasubramaniyan Koil Street, Arakkonam and the parents of the respondent agreed to extend financial assistance not only for purchase of the land, but also to construct a house thereon. Accordingly, the parents of the respondent contributed 75% of the land cost, while the balance was mobilised by the appellant and the land was purchased in the name of the appellant through a sale deed dated 31.08.1991 registered as document No. 929 of 1991.

(iii) It was further stated by the respondent/plaintiff that in the year 1994, she joined as Lecturer in Sri Krishna Engineering College, Kancheepuram. From and out of her salary amount and with the contribution made by her parents, she constructed two floors in the land purchased at Arakkonam and they started residing there, even though the respondent has to go to Kancheepuram for her work. Subsequently, the respondent got appointed as Lecturer in St. Peter’s Engineering College, Avadi and with her salary amount, she purchased a land at Santhosh Nagar, Ayyambakkam (Annanoor) during the year 1997 for which the appellant did not contribute anything. Later, the respondent got appointed as Lecturer in Vellore Institute of Technology with a basic salary of Rs. 13,003/- per month. For the purpose of her employment, the parties shifted their residence to Katpadi in the year 2000. The respondent financially assisted the appellant to set up his advocate office so as to enable him to extend his area of practice. Thereafter, for the purpose of education of the two children, the parties shifted their house to Chennai.

(iv) The plaint also proceeds to state that the respondent got appointed as Lecturer in R.M.K. Engineering College at Gummudipoondi in the year 2001 with enhanced salary. The appellant also started practicing in the Courts at Chennai. Init