Issues of limitation in amendment applications for specific performance and the nature of claims in injunction suits are critical to the determination.

ORDER :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, seeking amendment of plaint.

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit property and from evicting the petitioner except by due process of law.

3. According to the petitioner, he is carrying on the business of whole sale trade in iron and steel in the form of sheets and coils. Since there was dearth of space for operation of petitioner's business, the petitioner's younger son, M.Shankar purchased an extent of 1800 sq.ft of land in the suit survey number by sale deed dated 26.05.2005 under the guidance and suggestion of the petitioner, with a view to help of the petitioner. The respondent also purchased similar extent of 1800 sq.ft in the suit survey number. The petitioner's son purchased southern portion and respondent purchased northern portion. Thus total extent of 3600 sq.ft was available with the family of the petitioner and respondent. As per the mutual understanding between the family members of the petitioner and the respondent, a conclusive arrangement was arrived at and the entire extent of 3600 sq.ft was given physical possession to the petitioner with an understanding that the petitioner could utilize the said lands for putting up a massive factory shed in order to establish his ever growing business and trade in iron and steel. Thus, the petitioner's son and the respondent handed over the entire extent of 3600 sq.ft of land to the petitioner for the purpose of putting up shed. After getting physical possession of the property, the petitioner, at his own cost, during the year 2006-2007, put up factory shed in the entire land with an extent of 3600 sq.ft. Thus the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 3600 sq.ft of land from the year 2007.

4. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent had given a categorical statement on 06.09.2006 and 07.02.2007 that he would not in any manner claim or cause any interference with possessory right of the petitioner over the suit property, though portion of the same belongs to him. It is further stated by the petitioner that all of a sudden, the respondent gave out a threat of dispossession as his father instigated him to alienate his portion of the suit property to third parties. It was further stated by the petitioner that he has been in absolute and uninterrupted possession of the suit property all along and hence, he could not be evicted without due process of law. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction as stated supra.

5. The respondent herein filed a written statement and denied various averments made in the plaint filed by the petitioner. It was his specific case that the father of the petitioner and grandfather of the respondent viz., Lakshmanan was engaged in the business of iron and steel for several decades. Due to his old age, he decided to hand over the business to his sons and as such he started three business under the name and style of M/s.Sri Lakshmi Steel, which was handed over to the eldest son Mariappan, M/s.New Star Enterprises and the same was handed over to petitioner and M/s.Renuka Traders and the same was handed over to the father of the respondent. During the course of the said business, several prop