(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.

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.)

Common Order

1. 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 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/-.

                     (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.

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 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/-.

                     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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.”

                     (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. 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 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.

                     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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.