A party may not amend a suit's claims regarding ownership of property in a manner contradicting original pleadings without introducing adequate supporting evidence, undermining the integrity of legal proceedings.

ORDER :

P. DHANABAL, J.

The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 25.04.2014 passed in A.S. No.15 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur wherein the 1^st respondent herein, being the Plaintiff, had filed the Suit for partition and separate possession and alternatively to declare the title of the Plaintiff to the 2^nd schedule of the properties and for costs. The trial Court decreed the Suit for the alternative relief of declaration. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants 1, 6 and 11 have preferred the Appeal Suit in A.S. No.15 of 2013 before the Subordinate Judge, Hosur. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal Suit by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the said defendants.

2. The case of the Plaintiff before the trial Court is that the Plaintiff is the son of the 1^st defendant. The defendants 2 to 5 are the brothers of the Plaintiff and sons of the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant had three daughters and they got married before 1989. Therefore, they are not entitled to any share over the Suit properties. The 6^th defendant is the son of one Kenchamma, who is the daughter of the 1st defendant. The Suit properties are the ancestral properties of the Plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 and they have been jointly possessing and enjoying the Suit properties. There is no partition took place between the Plaintiffs and the defendants. The 1^st defendant being the father of the Plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 has been managing the Suit properties as a Joint Family Kartha. The 6^th defendant is a proforma defendant in the above Suit for the purpose of adjudication of the Suit. The Plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit properties along with the defendants 1 to 5. The defendants 1 to 5 were on eremitical terms due to women folk with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had been demanding the partition of the schedule properties, but the defendants refused for the amicable partition. On the other hand, they tried to alienate the properties in favour of the 6^th defendant or to third parties. Therefore, Suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff for partition.

2.1. After filing written statement and after recording evidence, the Plaint was amended. As per the Written statement and the evidence adduced by the parties, there was a partition and a Panchayath Muchalika Bhaga pattika dated 11.01.1993. As per the said Panchayath Muchalika Bhaga Pattika, the Schedule ‘D’ was allotted to the Plaintiff’s share. Therefore, the Plaintiff is satisfied if the title for ‘D’ schedule is declared in his favour, which are described as Schedule II property. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought for an alternative relief to declare the title of Schedule II property in his favour and also prayed for partition of his 1/6^th share over the Suit properties.

3. The ancestral nature of properties and joint possession are denied by the defendants. The case of the 1^st defendant is that the Plaintiff is not in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit properties along with the defendants. The Plaintiff is not entitled to 1/6^th share over the Suit properties. There is no cause of action for the Suit. The Suit property has not been properly valued and the Court fee paid is not correct. In fact, about 7 years ago, the properties were divided and on the basis of the said division, a Panchayat Muchalika was taken place. In the family arrangement, the Plaintiff was allotted and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. As such, the defendants 1 to 5 also