IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.02.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA C.R.P.P.D.No.659 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3744 of 2025

1. M.Babu

2. Ezhil Arasi .. Petitioners [Cause title accepted vide Court order dated 03.02.2025 made in C.M.P.No.2112 of 2025 in C.R.P.Sr.No.3685 of 2025]

-Vs.-

Murugesan (Deceased)

1. Malliga

2. Muthukumaran

3. Bhavani .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to allow this revision petition, set aside the order and decretal order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.7759 of 2022, permit the amendment of the pleadings in the plaint as stated in the petition.

For petitioners ... Mr.N.Gokula Rao

O R D E R

Aggrieved plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court challenging the order rejecting his amendment application.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below for morefully appreciating the issue which is the subject matter of revision. The parties for the ease of understanding are being referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

(i) The plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.7559 of 2022 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking a partition and separate possession of their 1/4^th each share in the suit schedule properties, to declare the various settlement deeds as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties.

(ii) The plaintiffs and the 3^rd defendant are the children born to the 1^st defendant and his legitimate wife, Unnamalai, who had committed suicide and died owing to certain matrimonial issues. The 4^th defendant is born to the 3^rd defendant through his concubine, Malliga, who was a neighbour and married to one Devaraj.

(iii) The plaintiffs would submit that their mother had passed away only on account of the extra marital relationship that the 1^st defendant had with the 3^rd defendant. Originally,their mother had moved from a matrimonial home to Ponniyammanmedu. They would further submit that the property which is described as Item No.1 in the suit schedule belonged to their grandmother, Muniyammal who was allotted the same by the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board under a registered Sale Deed dated 23.07.2010. Till her death on 27.02.2010, she was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the properties. Item No.2, which is the dwelling house, was purchased out of the income derived from the income of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties. Subsequently, it was brought under the EMI scheme by the plaintiffs' grandmother. Even during the life time of their grandmother, the plaintiffs were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property along with the other legal heirs, namely, defendants 1 and 3.

(iv) The plaintiffs would submit that the 2^nd defendant had taken away most of their mother's jewellery and the HUF income. The Item 1 and 2 properties were partly built during the lifetime of their original allottee, Muniyammal, and thereafter, the 1^st plaintiff, with his independent income, had plowed money into the construction of the property. Taking note of the actions of the 2^nd defendant, the plaintiffs had approached the 1^st defendant for partition, which he did not agree to. Thereafter, they came to learn about the settlement deed in respect of the HUF made by the 1^st defendant in favour of defendants 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit in question.

3. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs have come forward with the application for amending the plaint, which is the subject matter of this revision.

4. The amendment that was sought for is that Muniyammal was not the absolute owner of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property, though it was allotted in her name, and she had been allotted the property only as a trustee on behalf of the HUF. Thereafter, the nam