Case between Pallikkara Devaswam et al vs Radhamma @ Radha et al regarding amendment of plaint

Case Summary

This case involves the petitioners seeking permission to amend the plaint by incorporating additional reliefs and fixing boundaries related to their property dispute. The respondents oppose the amendment, claiming it would change the nature of the suit.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won

Interim Order

The application for amendment was allowed, granting the petitioner permission to amend the plaint as sought, which includes incorporating additional reliefs and adjusting the boundaries of the disputed property.

Judgment Favored

Plaintiff

Relief Granted

Permission to amend the plaint as sought

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

No

The application for amendment was allowed, granting the petitioner permission to amend the plaint as sought, which includes incorporating additional reliefs and adjusting the boundaries of the disputed property.

Why Plaintiff Won:
The amendment is essential for properly adjudicating the dispute and does not introduce a new cause of action.

Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available

Supporting Evidence

The amendment sought is confined to incorporating consequential reliefs such as declaration, fixation of boundary, and appointment of a Commissioner for measurement.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the application is allowed as follows:- 1. The petitioner is granted permission to carry out the amendment as sought.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Pallikkara Devaswam
Relation: Represented by

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: M S Suresh Namboothiri
Party Age: 59
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: T S Sunilkumar
Party Age: 48
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Savithry Antharjanam
Party Age: 82
Relation: W/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Lathika
Party Age: 59
Relation: D/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Radhamma @ Radha
Relation: D/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Padmini
Party Age: 67
Relation: W/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Sivadas Krishnan
Party Age: 41
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Smithesh Krishnan
Party Age: 36
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Smithadevi
Party Age: 46
Relation: D/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: M K Jayapalan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Jijo Thomas
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Aneesh James
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Binla T Thambi
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other

Outcome: Granted

Description:

Permission to carry out the amendment to the plaint.

Evidence:

In the result, the application is allowed as follows:- 1.The petitioner is granted permission to carry out the amendment as sought.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification