CRP/2348/2026 of Neelanathan Vs N.K.Nagan (Died) 1. Santha

CRP No. 2348 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 2348 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10126 OF 2026 Neelanathan S/o. N.K. Nagan Thandalam Village and Post Uthukottai Taluk Tiruvallur Dist. ..Petitioner(s) Vs N.K.Nagan (Died) 1. Santha W/o. Nagan Thandalam Village and Post Uthukottai Taluk Tiruvallur Dist. 2. Selvam S/o. Munusamy Reddy Thandalam Village and Post Uthukottai Taluk Tiruvallur Dist. 3. Ambika W/o. K.E.Srinivasan Thandalam Village and Post Uthukottai Taluk Tiruvallur Dist. 4. Dharani W/o. Natarajan Mambedu Village Mukkarambakkam Gummidipoondi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2348 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 5. K.Mahendran S/o. Kanniyan Mukkarambakkam Gummidipoondi 6. R.Poorkodi W/o. Ramesh Kumar No.22, Old No. 23, II Cross Street Ambigaipuram Tiruninravur 7. C.Sumathi W/o. Chinnikrishnan Plot No. 31, Annai Indira Nagar Annexe Tirunindravur ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decretal order dated 20.02.2026 passed in I.A.No. 4 of 2025 in OS No. 67 of 2011 by the Special Subordinate Court f or LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur. For Petitioner(s): Mr.E.Prabu ORDER Challenging the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 passed in I.A.No. 4 of 2025 in OS No. 67 of 2011 by the Special Subordinate Court for LAOP Case s, Tiruvallur, the plaintiff has preferred this revision. 2. The plaintiff has filed an application before the trial court under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to permit to amend the plaint in respect of the shares. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2348 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 plaint was amended after impleading his sisters as defendants 7 & 8. But the court below failed to appreciate such application and erroneously dism issed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit for partition before the t rial court in the year 2011 and now his sisters also impleaded as defendants 7 & 8 and incl usion of them shares ought to have been amended. The plaintiff submitted that t he suit property is an ancestral property in which his sisters are ent itled 1/4th share. To that effect, he want to amend the plaint. The said application was objected by the defendants before the trial court stating that after commencem ent of trial the plaintiff has come forward with such application and by relying t he ratio laid down in Marappan Vs S.Ammasi and 7 Others reported in 2018(3) MWN (Civil) 776. The trial judge dismissed the application holding that the plaintiff ought to have applied due diligence to carry out the amendment in the pl aint. Since already earlier opportunity was given to amend the plaint, even that time he has not made such amendment. Now one by one he filed applications and therefore, trial court dismissed the application. 4. Considering the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2011 by the revision petitioner / plaintiff claiming share in the property originally against six defendants. Now he included his sisters as defendants 7 & 8 and he want s to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2348 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 amend the pleading by altering the share and the plaintiff is enti tled to 1/4 th share in the suit property. But the defendants contested the case by st ating that the suit property is self acquired property and it is not an ance stral property as alleged by the plaintiff and also raised another objections by way of amendment that the plaintiff wanted to introduce new cause of action for which he cannot be permissible. But on considering the fact that it is a suit for parti tion and the plaintiff is entertained to raise all the defence before the t rial court, now he impleaded his sisters as parties as defendants 7 & 8. According t o the plaintiff, the suit property is an ancestral property though the defendants contest ed it is a self acquired property and the nature of the property could be decided only after the completion of the trial and not at the part heard stage. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to make amendment with regard to the share since he claims the suit property as ancestral property. If it is a self acquire d property, then the court has to decide the same after completion of the trial. Therefore, if opportunity is given to the plaintiff as such amendment would not cause any change in the character of the suit. Therefore, the findings of the trial court is set aside. Liberty is granted to the defendants to file an additional written statement and thereafter the court can proceed with the trial. The tri al court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of four months from the date of re ceipt of a copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2348 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.02.2026 passed in I.A.No. 4 of 2025 in OS No. 67 of 2011 by the Special Subordinate Court for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 29-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MTL To 1. The Special Subordinate Court for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2348 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. MTL CRP No. 2348 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10126 OF 2026 29-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis