CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserved 27/08/2026

Date of Pronounced 01/10/2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

CRP(MD) NOs.2365 and

2366 of 2026

{CNR: HCMD010652352026} Case QR

][and

CMP(MD)Nos.11477 and 11478 of 2026

(1)CRP(MD)No.2365 of 2026:-

R.Ummusafia : Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner/

Appellant

Vs.

A.Soundarajan (Died)

1.S.Maheswari

2.S.Maiyuran

3.S.Prasanth : Respondents/Respondents/

Respondents/Proposed R2 to 4

PRAYER:-This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned fair and decreetal

order passed in IA No.5 of 2025 in IA No.3 of 2023 in AS No.121 of

2017, dated 13/03/2026 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Trichy.

1/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

(2)CRP(MD)No.2366 of 2026:-

R.Ummusafia : Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner/

Appellant

Vs.

A.Soundarajan (Died)

1.S.Maheswari

2.S.Maiyuran

3.S.Prasanth : Respondents/Respondents/

Respondents/Proposed R2 to 4

PRAYER:-This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned fair and decreetal

order passed in IA No.3 of 2023 in AS No.121 of 2017, dated 13/03/2026

on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Trichy.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pradeep

for M/s.B.Saravanan Associates

For 1

st

Respondent : Mr.K.S.Vamsidhar

COMMON ORDER

CRP(MD)No.2365 of 2026 has been filed against the fair and

decreetal order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in A.S.No.

121 of 2017, dated 13/03/2026, by the learned I Additional Sub Court,

Tiruchirappalli, whereas CRP(MD)No.2366 of 2026 has been filed against

2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in A.S.No.121 of

2017, dated 13/03/2026, by the learned I Additional Sub Court,

Tiruchirappalli.

2.The petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court, who filed the

suit in O.S.No.1065 of 2009 on the file of the learned III Additional District

Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, seeking the relief of permanent injunction

against the defendant. The said suit was dismissed on 22/08/2017.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed A.S.No.121 of 2017. During the

pendency of the appeal, he filed an amendment petition on 10/04/2023 in

I.A.No.3 of 2023, seeking to amend the valuation and prayer column as

detailed below:-

In paragraph No.7 of the plaint, in the

valuation column, insert the following:-

(a)For the relief of declaration that the Power of

Attorney Deed dated 26.12.1997, registered with the

Sub-Registrar Office, Woraiyur, as Document No.302 of

1997, is a forged document, notionally valued at

Rs.1,000/-.

Court fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamil

Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act is Rs.30/-.

3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

(b)For the relief of declaration that the impugned

Sale Deed dated 10.12.1999, registered with the Sub-

Registrar Office, Woraiyur, as Document No.3885 of

1999, based on the impugned Power of Attorney, is null

and void, non est in the eye of law and not binding upon

the plaintiff, notionally valued at Rs.1,000/-.

Court fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamil

Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act is Rs.30/-.

In the prayer column of the plaint, after prayer

(a), add the following paragraphs as (a)(i) and (a)(ii):

(a)(i) To declare that the impugned Power of

Attorney Deed dated 26.12.1997, registered with the

Sub-Registrar Office, Woraiyur, as Document No.302 of

1997, is a forged and fabricated document.

(a)(ii) To declare that the impugned Sale Deed

dated 10.12.1999, registered with the Sub-Registrar

Office, Woraiyur, as Document No.3885 of 1999, based

on the impugned Power of Attorney, is null and void,

non est in the eye of law and not binding upon the

plaintiff.

4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

3.The petitioner filed the amendment petition stating that he had

earlier filed I.A.No.963 of 2018 in A.S.No.121 of 2017 seeking

appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to transmit the relevant

documents, namely Exs.A5, A9 and B3, to a competent Forensic Science

Laboratory for comparison and expert opinion regarding the disputed

signature of PW3. The respondent filed his counter objecting to the said

petition on the ground that additional evidence could not be received

without satisfying the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of

Civil Procedure and that Exs.A5 and A9 were not contemporaneous

documents to compared with Ex.B3. Therefore, the said I.A. was dismissed

on the ground that Ex.A9 was only a Xerox copy and could not be used for

comparison of the signature and that Ex.A5 was dated 16.11.2007 and was

not a contemporaneous document. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed

C.R.P.(MD)No.633 of 2020 before this Court, which was also dismissed on

08.03.2023. However, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to amend

the prayer in the suit by incorporating a relief of declaration within a period

of sixty days, in accordance with law.

4.The respondent seriously opposed the said petition by contending

that this Court had permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint only for the

relief of declaration of title and that the said permission was granted purely

5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. There

was no direction or permission to amend the plaint with regard to any other

relief or prayer sought in the petition. Therefore, according to the

respondent, the prayer for amendment could not be granted in view of the

specific direction issued by this Court.

5.While the said I.A.No.3 of 2023 was pending, the petitioner again

filed I.A.No.5 of 2025 seeking amendment of the valuation and prayer

column of the plaint as follows:-

In paragraph No.6(a) of the plaint, insert the

following contents:

The defendant is denying the title of the plaintiff

over the suit property on the basis of the fabricated

documents. Hence, the plaintiff seeks a declaration of his

title over the suit property.

In the valuation column of paragraph No.7,

insert the following as 7(c):

For the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the

absolute owner of the suit property, the guideline value

of the suit property is Rs.25,78,660/-.

The half value of the suit property is

Rs.12,89,330/-.

6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

Court fee paid under Section 25(b) of the Tamil

Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act is

Rs.38,679.90/-.

In the prayer column, insert the following as

prayer (a)(iii):

To declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner

of the suit property.

6.The defendant denied the title of the petitioner over the suit

property on the basis of the alleged fabricated documents. In the counter, it

was contended that the respondents were the absolute owner of the property

and that the suit property was in their exclusive possession and enjoyment

during their lifetime. After the death of the sole respondent, the property

devolved upon respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner had nothing to do with the

suit property at any point of time. The sole defendant claimed that he had

purchased the property in the year 1999 itself from the power agent of the

then owner. According to the respondents, this was the indisputable fact.

The original owner was examined as PW3. However PW3 had denied the

execution of the Power of Attorney in collusion with the petitioner in order

to grab the suit property. It was further contended that after the suit was

dismissed, the present appeal was filed and, since the appeal lacks merit, the

petitioner had filed the present petitions only to drag on the proceedings. It

7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

was further contended that the application for amendment ought to have

been filed within sixty days. Though the petitioner had filed I.A.No.3 of

2023 within the stipulated period, the said application was not for

declaration of title, but sought a declaration that the Sale Deed and Power of

Attorney were null and void. After a lapse of nearly two years, the petitioner

had come forward with the present prayer for amendment. He had not

sought any extension of time from this Court and, therefore, the liberty

granted by this Court had already become time-barred. Hence, the

respondents prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

7.The trial Court dismissed both the petitions. Aggrieved by the

same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner

stating that she is the absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased

the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 21.04.2008 for valuable

consideration from her vendor and that, ever-since the date of purchase, she

has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While

so, the deceased respondent attempted to interfere with his peaceful

possession and enjoyment. Hence, she filed O.S.No.1065 of 2009 before

the learned III Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, seeking the

relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering

8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The

deceased respondent contested the suit contending that he had purchased the

property under a registered Sale Deed dated 10.12.1999 executed by one

V.Vasanthakumar, who was alleged to have been appointed as the power

agent of the vendor under the Power of Attorney dated 26.12.1997. In order

to disprove the case of the respondent, the petitioner examined PW3 ,the

original owner of the property before the trial Court. PW3 categorically

deposed that he had never executed any Power of Attorney in favour of the

said V.Vasanthakumar and denied the signature found in the alleged Power

of Attorney relied upon by the respondent. However, the suit was dismissed

by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22.08.2017. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner filed A.S.No.121 of 2017 on the file of the learned I

Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. During the pendency of the appeal,

after engaging a new counsel, it was noticed that the signature of PW3

found in the alleged Power of Attorney marked as Ex.B3 did not tally with

his admitted signatures available in Exs.A5 and A9. Since the genuineness

of the Power of Attorney formed the very foundation of the respondent's

alleged title, the petitioner filed I.A.No.963 of 2018 seeking appointment of

an Advocate Commissioner to transmit the relevant documents to a

competent Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and expert opinion

regarding the disputed signature of PW3. The said petition was dismissed

9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

on the ground that Ex.A9 was only a xerox copy and that Ex.A5, being a

document of the year 2007, was not a contemporaneous document suitable

for comparison. Against the same, the petitioner preferred C.R.P.(MD)No.

633 of 2020 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 08.03.2023,

dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, but granted liberty to the petitioner to

amend the prayer in the suit within a period of sixty days. Pursuant to the

liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2023, seeking

amendment of the plaint to declare that the alleged Power of Attorney Deed

dated 26.12.1997, registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office,

Woraiyur, is a forged and fabricated document and to declare that the Sale

Deed dated 10.12.1999, registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office,

Woraiyur, is null and void. During the pendency of the said I.A., it was

stated to be necessary to incorporate a specific declaratory relief declaring

that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit property, so as to

comprehensively adjudicate the rival claims of title and to give complete

effect to the liberty granted by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed

I.A.No.5 of 2025 seeking amendment of the prayer in the pending

amendment application.

10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

8.According to the petitioner, the said application did not seek to

invoke afresh the liberty granted by this Court, nor did it introduce any new

cause of action, new factual foundation or inconsistent plea. It was filed

only to supplement, complete and perfect the amendment already sought in

I.A.No.3 of 2023, which, according to the petitioner, had admittedly been

filed within the period stipulated by this Court. However, the said

application was dismissed by the Court below by treating I.A.No.5 of 2025

as an independent application filed beyond the prescribed period.

9.The petitioner contends that the proposed amendment is essential

for the complete and effective adjudication of the rival claims of title and

that the same ought not to have been rejected by adopting a technical

approach. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petitions

seeking to set aside the orders passed by the Court below and to allow the

amendment. In support his contention, he relied upon the following

decisions:-

(i).In M.Mohan Vs. G.Janarathanam, reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine Mad 6183, wherein it has been held in para 7, 8 and 9 as follows:-

“7.The suit is one for bare injunction and in the

written statement there is a categorical denial of the title

11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

of the plaintiff. No doubt, the written statement was filed

in January 2019 and there has been considerable delay

in seeking amendment to include the relief of declaration

of title. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ragu Thilak

D.John’s case (referred herein above), held that even if

there was change in nature of the suit originally filed, the

dominant purpose of under Order VI Rule 17 CPC being

only to minimize litigations, even if such amendment

would be barred by law of limitation, should be

considered liberally.

8.In Pankaja's case, (referred herein supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme court held that if the amendment

subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further

litigation, then amendment should be allowed, even

though there has been delay. The Patna High Court

in Gul Hasan Miyan's case, (referred herein supra),

following the ratio laid down by the Hon’bel Supreme

Court Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev

Builders, reported in (2022) SCC online SC 1128, held

that though permitting the amendment at the stage of

evidence would cause further delay, considering that the

plaintiff would be the sufferer having come to the Court,

held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant,

if the amendment is ordered, finding that the contesting

respondent would have ample opportunities to rebut or

controvert the plaint of the plaintiff, which is sought to

12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

be brought through amendment, by filing an additional

written statement.

9.The ratio laid down in these cases, would squarely

apply to the facts of the present case as well. The only

ground on which, the Trial Court has refused the

amendment is that there has been inordinate delay

considering the fact that the written statement was filed

even as early as in January 2019. However, as held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases

and also followed by Patna High Court, even if the

original character of the suit gets altered, from the relief

of permanent injunction to the relief of declaration of

title, when parties are at issue with regard to the very

same subject property, by permitting amendment, it

would minimize litigation as well, the amendment would

certainly subserve the cause of justice. The mere fact that

there has been a delay should not be put against the

plaintiff. In fact, the defendant can always be

compensated for the prejudice caused, if any, on account

of delay, leave alone the opportunity to meet the

amended portions of the plaint by filing an additional

written statement.”

13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

(ii).In Ragu Thilak D.John Vs. S.Rayappan and others, reported in

(2001)2 Supreme Court Cases 472, wherein it has been held in para 5 and

6 as follows:-

“5.After referring to the judgments in Charan

Das v. Amir Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50], L.J. Leach &

Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Jardine Skinner & Company [1957

SCR 438], Smt.Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors.

[1974 (2) SCC 393], M/s.Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji

Ram [1978 (2) SCC 91] and various other authorities,

this Court in B.K.N. Pillai v. P.Pillai & Anr. [JT 1999

(10) SC 61] held: "The purpose and object of Order 6

Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend

his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as

may be just. The power to allow the amendment is

wide and can be exercised at any stage of the

proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of

guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this

Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed

as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it

is equally true that the courts while deciding such

prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach.

Liberal approach should be the general rule

particularly in cases where the other side can be

compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law

should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the

administration of justice between the parties.

14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid

uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.

6.If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant

case, the amendment sought could not be declined.

The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is

to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief

sought by way of amendment was barred by time is

arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident

from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to

8(f) of the plant which were sought to be incorporated

by way of amendment. We feel that in the

circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being

disputed could be made a subject matter of the issue

after allowing the amendment prayed for.”

(iii).In Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan, reported in (2005)13

Supreme Court Cases 89, wherein it has been held in para 5 as follows:-

“5..It is true that the plaintiff-appellant ought to

have been diligent in promptly seeking the amendment in

the plaint at an early stage of the suit, more so when the

error on the part of the plaintiff was pointed out by the

defendant in the written statement itself. Still, we are of

the opinion that the proposed amendment was necessary

for the purpose of bringing to the force the real question

in controversy between the parties and the refusal to

permit the amendment would create needless

15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

complications at the stage of execution in the event of the

plaintiff-appellant succeeding in the suit.”

(iv).In Pankaja and another Vs. Yellappa (Dead) By LR.s and

another, reported in (2004)6 Supreme Court Cases 415, wherein it has

been held in paras 13, 14, 16 and 17 as follows:-

“13.But the question for our consideration is whether in

cases where the delay has extinguished the right of the party by

virtue of expiry of the period of the period of limitation

prescribed in law, can the court in the exercise of its discretion

take away the right accrued to another party by allowing such

belated amendments.

14.The law in this regard is also quite clear and

consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where

a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not

be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and

circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow

an amendment being discretionary the same will have to be

exercised in a judicious evaluation of the facts and

circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting

of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice

and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There

can be no straight jacket formula for allowing or disallowing an

amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual

background of that case.

16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

15....

16.This view of this Court has, since, been followed by a

3 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of T.N. Alloy Foundry

Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board & Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 392.

Therefore, an application for amendment of the pleading should

not be disallowed merely because it is opposed on the ground

that the same is barred by limitation, on the contrary,

application will have to be considered bearing in mind the

discretion that is vested with the Court in allowing or

disallowing such amendment in the interest of justice.:

(v).In Sankarlal Vs. 1.Selvaraj and 2.Dathi (CRP(MD)No.98 of

2023, dated 06/02/2026), wherein it has been held in para 9 to 11:-

“9.The point that arises for consideration is whether the

revision petitioner has shown due diligence in filing the

application for amendment as required under Order VI Rule 17

of CPC.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner fairly submitted that the revision petitioner ought to

have been more cautious while filing the application before the

trial Court. However, he contended that the right of the revision

petitioner to seek amendment of the plaint should not be taken

away on that ground alone.

11.The primary question as to whether the case falls

under Section 58 or Section 65 of the Limitation Act is a matter

to be decided by the trial Court, in the light of the

17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. In

cases, where the suit was originally filed for bare injunction

and there is material to show that the revision petitioner is in

possession of the property, an amendment seeking declaration

can also be considered. Such a question relating to limitation

and entitlement is a matter for trial.”

10.Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents contended

that respondents are the absolute owners of the property by virtue of the

purchase made in the year 1999 and that their names have subsequently

been entered in the revenue records. It was further contended that the

original owner, who had executed the Power of Attorney, subsequently

colluded with the plaintiff in order to defeat the rights of the defendant and

adduced evidence against the purchaser. It was further contended that,

despite having full knowledge of the alleged Power of Attorney and Sale

Deed, the petitioner had not taken any steps to seek a declaration that the

suit property, the Power of Attorney or the Sale Deed was null and void.

Only after the dismissal of the suit and during the pendency of the appeal,

he had filed the present petitions. The respondents admitted that this Court

had granted liberty to the petitioner to file an amendment petition, but

contended that the said liberty was confined only to seeking a declaration of

title. Instead of seeking such declaration within the stipulated period, the

18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

petitioner had filed a petition seeking a declaration that the Sale Deed and

Power of Attorney executed by the erstwhile vendor were null and void.

Thereafter, the petitioner had not proceeded with the matter and had kept

silent for nearly two years. According to the respondents, the present

application had been filed only to overcome the delay, to drag on the

proceedings and to fill up the lacuna in the suit filed by the petitioner and

prays for dismissal of the civil revision petitions.

11.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

12.The petitioner claimed ownership over the suit property and filed

the suit for permanent injunction contending that the defendant was

interfering with his possession and enjoyment. The defendant filed a

detailed written statement contending that he was the real owner of the

property, having purchased the same on 10.12.1999 under a registered Sale

Deed executed through his power agent, V.Vasanthakumar, on behalf of the

original owner.

13.The plaintiff further claimed to have purchased the property from

one Rani, who was alleged to have acted as the power agent of the original

19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

vendor, Prakasam. Even after the filing of the written statement raising a

specific dispute with regard to the title, the plaintiff had not taken any steps

to file a petition seeking a declaration of his title over the suit property.

Thereafter, the suit came to be dismissed. The trial Court held that the

plaintiff claimed title to the suit property through Exs.A2 and A5 and that he

ought to approach the Court seeking a declaration with regard to Ex.B2,

which, according to him, was a fraudulent document, and also challenging

the authority of V.Vasanthakumar, who had represented himself as the

power agent and executed Ex.B2 in favour of the defendant. Therefore, it is

clear that the dispute between the parties is essentially one relating to the

title over the suit property and the validity of the documents relied upon by

the respective parties.

14.When there is a dispute with regard to title between the plaintiff

and the defendant and when the plaintiff has ultimately failed to establish

her title to the suit property, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff is not

entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the

suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the appeal. In the said

appeal, she sought comparison of the signature of her vendor with the

signature found in the Power of Attorney and the Sale Deed. However, the

20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

said petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no original

document available for comparison. This Court also granted liberty to the

petitioner to amend the prayer in the suit within a period of sixty days, in

accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter filed the amendment petition

in I.A.No.3 of 2023. The Court below has clearly observed that the

petitioner filed the said application on 11.04.2023, which was returned on

28.04.2023, and that the same was not re-presented. However, all of a

sudden, on 24.02.2025, a petition was filed seeking a declaration that the

Sale Deed and the Power of Attorney were null and void.

15.Thereafter, after a lapse of nearly two years, another interlocutory

application was filed along with the said I.A., seeking a declaration that the

petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. The petitioner, having

knowledge of the documents relied upon by the defendant, ought to have

sought the appropriate declaratory relief within the period prescribed under

the Limitation Act.

16.In respect of a declaration simpliciter, Article 58 of the Limitation

Act prescribes a period of three years from the date when the right to sue

first accrues. In respect of a declaration that an instrument is forged, Article

21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

56 prescribes a period of three years from the date when the issue or

registration becomes known to the plaintiff. Similarly, where cancellation or

setting aside of an instrument is sought, Article 59 prescribes a period of

three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the

instrument cancelled or set aside first become known to her.

17.In the present case, the defendant had specifically set up his title

on the basis of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.12.1999 and the Power of

Attorney dated 26.12.1997. Even after the filing of the written statement

and despite having knowledge of the documents relied upon by the

defendant, the petitioner did not seek the appropriate declaratory relief

within the period of limitation. The petitioner confined her original suit to

the relief of permanent injunction.

18.This Court, while disposing of C.R.P.(MD)No.633 of 2020 on

08.03.2023, specifically granted liberty to the petitioner to amend the prayer

in the suit by incorporating the relief of declaration within a period of sixty

days, in accordance with law. The petitioner did not avail the said liberty in

the manner and within the time stipulated by this Court. Instead, the

amendment petition filed thereafter sought to introduce a different relief

22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

relating to the validity of the Power of Attorney and Sale Deed.

Subsequently, after a considerable delay, I.A.No.5 of 2025 was filed seeking

a declaration of title.

19.The contention of the petitioner that I.A.No.5 of 2025 was merely

supplementary to I.A.No.3 of 2023 cannot, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, be accepted. The relief sought in I.A.No.5 of 2025 is a substantive

declaratory relief relating to the petitioner's title. Such a relief cannot be

introduced merely by treating the subsequent application as a continuation

of an earlier application, particularly when the petitioner had failed to avail

the specific liberty granted by this Court within the stipulated period and

when the proposed relief is otherwise subject to the law of limitation.

20.The petitioner was fully aware of the rival claim of title set up by

the defendant and of the registered documents on the basis of which such

claim was made. Nevertheless, she chose to seek only the relief of

permanent injunction. After the dismissal of the suit, she filed the appeal

and thereafter sought to introduce the declaratory relief. The amendment

sought after such a long lapse of time, therefore, cannot be permitted when

the proposed relief is prima facie barred by limitation.

23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

21.Hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the amendment

applications. This Court finds no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the

orders passed by the Court below warranting interference under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.

22.In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

01.10.2026

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

er

To,

1.The I Additional Sub Court,

Trichy.

2.The Section Officer,

VR/ER Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

R.POORNIMA, J.

er

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

01/10/2026

25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.2365 and 2366 of 2026

26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis