Sold the land as attorney, then moved to plaintiff side: Madras HC bars his plaint amendment
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh set aside a City Civil Court order that let K. Madhavan, a defendant transposed as second plaintiff in a 2005 suit, amend the plaint, holding that Order VI Rule 17 lets only the party who filed a pleading amend it, and fixed a three-month deadline for the trial.
K. Madhavan signed a sale deed in 1996 as power of attorney agent of the owner. Almost thirty years later he was a plaintiff in the suit seeking to protect that sale, and he wanted to rewrite the plaint. On 11 November 2026 the Madras High Court said he could not.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that a defendant who has already filed a written statement, and is later transposed as plaintiff, cannot amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He set aside the City Civil Court order that had allowed the amendment.
A sale deed, then its cancellation
The dispute began with O.S. No. 7434 of 2005 in the Fourth Assistant Judge’s court at the City Civil Court, Chennai. The original plaintiff, D. Martin, sought a declaration that a cancellation deed of 22 August 1996, executed by N. Ranganathan, was null and void.
Mr Martin’s case was that a sale deed of 22 January 1996 had been executed in his favour by Mr Ranganathan, acting through Mr Madhavan. Mr Ranganathan, he said, then cancelled it unilaterally.
Mr Madhavan was the second defendant. He was Mr Ranganathan’s power of attorney agent, and he had executed the sale deed on his behalf. On 30 October 2008, Mr Martin settled the property on him by a registered deed.
From writ petition to Division Bench
Mr Madhavan filed W.P. No. 12571 of 2010 against the cancellation. A single judge dismissed it on 24 September 2024, and he appealed in W.A. No. 3584 of 2024.
On 24 January 2025 a Division Bench modified that order. It noted that the suit was still pending and that the civil court could grant both declarations and consequential reliefs. It let Mr Madhavan apply to be transposed as plaintiff and ordered the suit to be disposed of within six months.
The Division Bench also said both sides could raise all their factual and legal contentions before the trial court. The suit had in the meantime been dismissed as abated on 24 November 2009 and was restored only on 7 August 2025. Mr Martin had died, and Mr Madhavan was transposed as the second plaintiff.
What the amendment sought to add
Mr Madhavan then filed I.A. No. 3 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 to amend the plaint. He wanted to plead that his power of attorney of 24 November 1995 covered the whole property, but that he had sold only 2,072 sq. ft. to Mr Martin, a portion matching a debt the owner owed.
He also wanted to plead that Mr Martin learnt of the cancellation only in January 2005 and sued at once. A further paragraph said the Sub Registrar should not have registered a cancellation executed by the vendor alone, and that the settlement deed made him full owner.
The City Civil Court allowed the application on 12 September 2025. Mr Ranganathan, the first defendant, challenged that order in a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, numbered CRP No. 4714 of 2025.
The objection to a second pleading
Mr P. Wilson Topaz, for M/s A.S. Kailasam Associates, appeared for the petitioner. Mr V.G. Suresh Kumar appeared for Mr Madhavan, and Mrs D. Chitra Maragadham, Government Advocate, for the Inspector General of Registration and the Sub Registrar.
The main ground for the petitioner was that Mr Madhavan had filed a written statement and had supported the original plaintiff’s case. After transposition, the petitioner said, he was not the original plaintiff and could only prosecute the suit on the pleadings Mr Martin had made. The judgment records no separate argument from the respondents.
Why the court called the amendment anomalous
The court framed the issue as whether he could do so once transposed, in these words:
“The crucial question to be answered is as to whether the 2nd defendant, who had already pleaded by way of filing a written statement, can amend the plaint after being transposed” (para 15)
Justice Venkatesh began with the text. Order VI Rule 17 lets the court allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings. The court read that to mean that only the party who filed the plaint or the written statement can amend it.
The court put it in one sentence:
“An amendment cannot be permitted to be carried out by a defendant, in a plaint” (para 16)
It added that a plaintiff likewise cannot amend a written statement. The judge noted that he had taken the same view in V. Senthilkumar v. Lakshmi, reported in 2026 (4) LW 368, where he held that only the respective party to the pleadings can seek amendment.
Applying that here, the court noted that Mr Madhavan was the second defendant and had filed a written statement, which formed the basis of the case he projected. His new role as plaintiff rested on the settlement deed of 30 October 2008. The court said it allowed the transposition only because of the peculiar facts and Mr Martin’s death.
After transposition, the court held, he could at best try to sustain the stand taken in the plaint by the original plaintiff. Allowing him to amend it would let one person file a plaint as transposed plaintiff and a written statement in his earlier capacity as second defendant, which the court said would lead to anomalous consequences (para 18).
The City Civil Court, it found, had not considered that legal issue and had mechanically allowed the application. The court held that the order suffered from perversity warranting interference.
Order
The civil revision petition is allowed. The order of 12 September 2025 in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in O.S. No. 7434 of 2005 is set aside.
The Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 7434 of 2005 within three months of receiving a copy of the order. There is no order as to costs, and the connected CMP No. 23829 of 2025 is closed.