A.Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022

in C.S.No.229 of 2017

A.Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022 in

C.S.No.229 of 2017

Reserved On :

04.11.2022

Pronounced On:

111622

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J.,

A.No.3485 of 2022 and A.No.3486 of 2022 in C.S.No.229 of 2017

have been filed seeking permission to the applicant/plaintiff to file reply

statement to the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 3

respectively.

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that fresh

reply statement is filed by the plaintiff in answer to the written statement

filed by the first defendant. It is necessitated for the reason that certain

new facts, averments and contentions are raised by defendants in their

written statement. Therefore, it has become necessary to file a detailed

reply statement. Only if the reply statements are permitted to be filed,

applicant will be in a position to pursue the suit.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022

in C.S.No.229 of 2017

3.The learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant

strongly opposed this application on the ground that the written

statement was filed by the first respondent giving specific answer to the

pleadings set forth in the plaint. No new facts or averments have been

raised in the written statement. Mere glance of the reply statement would

reveal that applicant has sought to introduce altogether a new case, which

is different from his original pleadings and it is larger than the original

plaint. Applicant filed more documents along with this application. It is

not known why these documents are not produced when the suit was

filed. The documents filed are manipulated records filed with an attempt

to fill with a lacuna in the pleadings and to get over the admissions made

by the applicant. Under the guise of filing reply statement, applicant is

trying to develop his case or introduce new case and fill up the lacuna.

Therefore, he prays for dismissal of these applications.

4.Similarly the learned counsel for the third respondent also

opposed this application on the above grounds.

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022

in C.S.No.229 of 2017

5.Considered rival submissions and perused the records.

6.This suit is filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking the relief of

partition of suit 'B' schedule property and for other reliefs. The brief case

of the plaintiff is that, the Kartas' of plaintiff HUF and first defendant

HUF purchased a vacant house site in Aminjikarai on 04.11.1992.

Plaintiff HUF is entitled to 50% of the undivided share. Subsequently,

plaintiff HUF and first defendant HUF invested their savings and

constructed ground floor plus three floors on the vacant site which is

described as 'B' schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff HUF is entitled for

50% share in the property. Since 2004, plaintiff HUF is based in

Australia, they did not travel to India frequently and were unable to

monitor or supervise 'B' schedule property regularly. Recently it came to

the knowledge of the plaintiff HUF that 'B' schedule property was

fraudulently transferred to defendant No.1 HUF through its Karta by way

of a purported release deed dated 19.05.2010, rectification deed dated

02.09.2010, under which second defendant is illegally shown as releasor.

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022

in C.S.No.229 of 2017

This is a conspiracy between the first defendant HUF and second

defendant. None of the members of plaintiff HUF is a party to release

deed dated 19.05.2010. The release deed contains fraudulent statements

regarding the share held by the second defendant in 'B' schedule property.

It is falsely stated stated that plaintiff HUF and second defendant were

made an oral family arrangement on 26.02.2003, whereby 3/8^th

undivided share held by the plaintiff HUF had been relinquished in

favour of second defendant. A c