P. SIVAN Vs. P. SHANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed against the order dated October 11, 2018 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Port Blair in Title Suit No. 27 of 2015 by which the learned court below allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the opposite party No. 1 i.e. plaintiff No. 2 in the said suit, for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The fact of the case is that the opposite parties filed a suit for partition which was registered as Title Suit No. 28 of 2010 and subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 17 of 2015 against the petitioners in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Port Blair. According to them, the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 6 were the daughters of late D. Prakasan and the defendant No. 1, 2, 3 were the first wife, son and other daughter of late D. Prakasan respectively from his first wife P. Radha the defendant No. 1. The proforma defendant was also a son of the deceased but has not contested the proceedings. That late D. Prakasan was the tenant with regard to land bearing survey No. 61/1, 61/2, 62, 63, 64, 112 and 199 measuring an area of 0.0557 hects, 0.0543 hects, 0.05 hects, 0.04 hects, 0.09 hects, 0.07 hects and 0.02 hectares situated at Burmanallah, Bimbilitan village under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District.

(3.) It was stated in the plaint that the deceased married one Smt. Leela in 1957 and had six daughters and one son out of the said matrimonial tie. That Late D. Prakasan was a settler in respect of the land stated hereinabove. That the landed property was mutated in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants. That the plaintiffs came to know that the petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 2 was giving the landed property to one Ramachandran on lease without partition of the property and such action of the petitioner No. 1 was going to affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. The entire property of the original settler D. Prakasan described in the schedule of the plaint should be divided amongst his heirs namely, the plaintiffs and the defendants in terms of the Hindu Law of Succession. That the original settler constructed a dwelling house over the property during his life time and the defendants and the plaintiffs used to reside together. The plaintiff Nos. 1, 4 and 6 were residing outside after marriage. The plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were residing in the landed property without knowing their actual share. That after the death of D. Prakasan dispute arose when the petitioner No. 1 also started some construction over the property without first partitioning the property. The petitioner No. 1 refused to partition the property among the heirs of the deceased. That as per the Hindu Law, the share of the deceased with regard to the schedule property should be divided equally amongst the legal heirs.