O R D E R

This civil revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 19/10/2023 passed in IA No.5 of 2023 in OS No.8 of 2020 by the District Munsif, Srivaikundram.

2.The facts in brief:-

A suit in OS No.8 of 2020 was filed by the petitioners as plaintiffs seeking the relief of declaration that they are the sole legal heirs of the deceased Vaikundaramasamya Pillai. Originally, Tashildar, Eral Taluk and the District Collector, Tuticorin were arrayed as party defendants. Later, one Ganesan filed an application to implead himself as party defendant. That came to be allowed by the trial court. He filed written statement. Pending further process, the present petition in IA No.5 of 2023 was taken out by the petitioners to amend the original plaint. That came to be dismissed by the trial court, by order, dated 19/10/2023.

3.Aggrieved over the same, this civil revision petition has been preferred.

4.Heard both sides.

5.The facts narrated in the plaint namely in the original plaint runs as follows, as amended subsequent to the adding of the third defendant;-

One Vaikundaramasamya Pillai belongs to Kotarakurichi village. He married one Gandhimathi Ammal. That was the first marriage. Through the first marriage, the above said Vaikundaramasamya Pillai had no children. Gandhimathi Ammal expired, on 17/06/1981. During the life time of Gandhimathi Ammal, Vaikundaramasamya Pillai married one Rajammal @ Vellammal, in 1945. Through that marriage, the plaintiffs born. Vaikundaramasamya Pillai expired, on 30/10/1977 leaving behind the plaintiffs as legal heirs. He died intestate. Rajammal @ Vellammal expired, on 08/03/1980. Vaikundaramasamya Pillai executed a settlement deed, on 26/12/1952 in favour of Rajammal @ Vellammal. So the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the Vaikundaramasamya Pillai.

6.The third defendant has stated that he is also one of the legal heirs, impleaded as party defendant. Now the third defendant has stated in the written statement that the first marriage with Gandhimathi Ammal is not disputed. But the second marriage with Rajammal @ Vellammal is disputed. Similarly, settlement deed is also disputed. Vaikundaramasamya Pillai during his life time settled the right of the temple in favour of Gandhimathi Ammal, on 06/07/1963. After the death of Vaikundaramasamya Pillai, the third defendant was adopted by Gandhimathi Ammal through deed, dated 13/11/1978. Gandhimathi Ammal in turn executed a Will in favour of him, on 05/07/1979 and that was the pleadings by the parties before the trial court. After that, the present petition is taken out by the petitioners seeking amendment of the original plaint incorporating the particulars controverted, denied or disputed facts mentioned by the third defendant in the written statement.

7.That came to be dismissed by the trial court stating that even at the time of filing IA No.3 of 2021, the facts now narrated in the amended petition was already known to him. Even in IA No.4 of 2021, those facts were omitted to be mentioned. So the delay is not properly explained by the petitioners. Apart from that, it is also stated the entire nature of the suit is also sought to be modified or altered. Already, there is a direction by this court to dispose the suit within a stipulated time.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729) and S.Venkattram Reddy Vs. S.Vinod Reddy (CDJ 1986 APHC 160).

9.The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent relied upon the judgments (i)V.Sridhar Vs. V.Srinivasan [2009(1) CTC 516); and Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., Vs. Alok Kumar Lodha and others [2022 LiveLaw (SC)565].

10.Now we will straightaway go to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the petitioners reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and a