SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice S. SOUNTHAR
Dhanapal – Appellant
Versus
Kamala (Died) 1.Kala – Respondent



##PAGE1##

C.R.P.No.472 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.472 of 2026

and

C.M.P.No.2620 of 2026

Dhanapal ... Petitioner

vs.

Kamala (Died)

1.Kala

2.Thangaraj

3.Ramyapriya

4.Kanagavalli

5.Chitra ... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree dated 28.11.2025 in

I.A.No.05 of 2025 in O.S.No.147 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif,

Sholinghur, Ranipet District, by allowing the present Civil Revision

Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Gouthaman

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 01:18:00 pm )

##PAGE2##

C.R.P.No.472 of 2026

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by

the District Munsif, Sholinghur, Ranipet District in I.A.No.05 of 2025 in

O.S.No.147 of 2016, dated 28.11.2025 dismissing the application filed by

the petitioner/1st defendant seeking leave to file additional written statement.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a suit seeking partition and

separate possession. The petitioner/1st defendant already filed a written

statement, wherein he had pleaded that there was a Oral Partition in the year

1974 between the legal heirs of the deceased Ponnusamy and his son and

under the said partition, the suit schedule properties were allotted to him.

Now, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner seeking leave to

file additional written statement.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was stated by the

petitioner that in the original statement without his knowledge, certain facts

were introduced regarding partition in the year 1974 and allotment of share

in favour of the petitioner and therefore, to clarify the position that there was

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 01:18:00 pm )

##PAGE3##

C.R.P.No.472 of 2026

no partition in the year 1974, the petitioner wanted to file additional written

statement. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court and

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the plea regarding Oral Partition in the year 1974

was introduced by previous counsel without consent of the petitioner.

Therefore, to clarify that position, the petitioner may be permitted to file an

additional written statement.

5. Earlier, the petitioner filed written statement pleading 1974

Partition and allotment of share in his favour. Now, by way of additional

written statement, he wants to take diametrically opposite plea by pleading

that there was no Partition in the year 1974. The plea sought to be

introduced by way of additional written statement is mutually destructive in

nature and by virtue of additional written statement, the petitioner

effectively wants to withdraw his earlier pleadings.

6. It is settled law that additional written statement to introduce a

plea which is mutually destructive with earlier plea cannot be accepted.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 01:18:00 pm )

##PAGE4##

C.R.P.No.472 of 2026

Further, the reason given by the petitioner to file additional written

statement also cannot be accepted.

7. The petitioner verified the earlier written statement and affixed his

signature. In such circumstances, he cannot say that without his knowledge,

certain averments were made in the written statement by the previous

counsel. Such stand taken by the petitioner will defeat the very sanctity and

the object of the pleadings. Therefore, I do not find any error in the

impugned order passed by the District Munsif, Sholinghur, Ranipet District

in I.A.No.05 of 2025 in O.S.No.147 of 2016, dated 28.11.2025.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.02.2026

Index : Yes / No

Speaking order : Yes / No

Neutral Citation : Yes / No

dm

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top