Amendments to pleadings should be allowed to facilitate justice when trial has not commenced and do not prejudice the opposing party.

ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J. 

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order of dismissal dated August 16, 2022 passed in a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] in I.A. No.225 of 2018 of O.S. No.172 of 2016 on the file of 'the Additional Subordinate Court, Tindivanam' ['Trial Court' for short].

2. The Revision Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit. The Respondents herein are the Defendants therein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their rankings in the Suit.

3. The first plaintiff is the father and the second plaintiff is his son. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers of first plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 are legal heirs of Late. Krishnan who is another brother of first plaintiff. Defendants 6 and 7 are sons of first defendant. Eight defendant is the second defendant's son. Fifteenth defendant is second defendant's wife. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2, and late Krishnan have four sisters namely Pattalam, Dhanam, Savithri and Rani.

4. Case of the plaintiffs is that the Suit 'A' schedule property are joint properties in which the first plaintiff is entitled to ¼ share. Further case is that the Suit 'B' schedule properties were purchased jointly by first plaintiff and second defendant and hence, the first plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in it. When the first plaintiff was suffering from mental illness, the Partition Deed dated June 19, 2008 followed by Rectification Deed dated October 24, 2008 were executed by undue influence causing prejudice to the plaintiffs' share in the suit properties. Hence the plaintiffs filed the present Suit for declaration that the aforesaid Partition Deed and Rectification Deed are invalid, for partition and other reliefs.

5. The plaintiff inter-alia in Paragraph No.6 of the plaint averred that Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties is a house site with building measuring 12 Cents within specific four boundaries, was orally divided between first plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, and their brother - late Krishnan; 2 Cents were left for pathway and the remaining 10 Cents were equally divided among the four. The western 2 ½ Cents was allotted to the first plaintiff, the next 2 ½ Cents was allotted to first defendant, next 2 ½ Cents was allotted to Late Krishnan and the next 2 ½ Cents was allotted to second defendant. Separate Pattas were also sought to be obtained. Subsequently, with a view to defeat and defraud the plaintiffs' rights, fabricated documents as if he is entitled to 3 Cents and also as if his wife, the fifteenth defendant purchased 2 Cents in the said item and filed a Suit in O.S. No.15 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam and obtained a Judgment and Decree in his favour. Further, defendants 2 and 15 (husband and wife) fraudulently executed a Sale Deed in favour of sixteenth defendant. The first plaintiff executed a Gift Settlement Deed dated December 30, 2010 in favour of second plaintiff based on the oral partition qua Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties. But as the defendants failed to act in accordance with the oral partition, the said Gift Settlement Deed could not be brought into force. Hence, Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties needs to be partitioned by way of this Suit and that is why the second plaintiff has been added as a party. These are the averments contained in Paragraph No.6 qua Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties.

6. The second defendant filed written statement and the defendants 1, 6 to 8 and 15 adopted the same. It was inter-alia contended that the plaint does