Lydia Margaret Santhanam and another vs David Thamburaj and another

Veeraswami, J.—These petitions are to revise the orders of the Court below allowing amendment of the plaints by raising alternative grounds. The plaint as originally framed prayed for ejectment of the petitioners. The plaintiffs are brothers and the defendant in each of the suits is a sister of theirs. The plaintiffs would appear to have filed applications under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of their sisters on the ground that they were tenants, but they failed in those applications because their sisters claimed title to the property along with the plaintiffs. There-after the plaintiffs sued for recovery of possession, curiously on the ground that the sisters were tenants. When the defendants raised the plea in defence that they had title to the property the plaintiffs came forward then with applications for amendment of the plaints. I consider that the Court below was right, in allowing the amendment. The test for allowing applications for amendment of plaints would be, not merely whether a new cause of action is introduced, but whether, if it is allowed, thereby the defence would in any way be prejudiced, either by deprivation of the plea of limitation or any other plea. If the amendment would have the right effect of depriving a valuable plea which the defendants would otherwise have then, of course, the amendment could not be allowed. In this case, the amendment appears to be just and reasonable, and there is no reason why the plaintiffs should be driven to file fresh plaints, merely on the ground that the alternative prayers for title will introduce a new cause of action. A new cause of action can well be allowed to be taken by way of an amendment provided it is an alternative plea. The suits will even after the amendment remain to be suits for recovery of possession. While the basis of the claim as originally given was tenancy by the amendment another basis is given, namely, title. As I said, by the amendment, the defence will not, in any way, be prejudiced.

The petitions are dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.