Priya Ravi v. Ms Prema Ravoori
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A No. 1739 of 2026 in C.S. No. 168 of 2023 Priya Ravi D/o K.Ravi, 3272,Carol Reaf, San Jose, California, Usa - 95148, Represented By Her Poa Tmt. B.Sheela, Residing At 354 Ambica Street, Golden George Nagar, Mogappair, Madras 600 107.
..Applicant(s) Vs
1. Ms PREMA RAVOORI W/o K.Ravi, No.3, Ground, Floor, Tilak Towers, II Link Street, Cit Colony, Chennai 600 004
2. Mr.Vignesh Ravi, S/o Ravi, Doctors Cove, No.36, Karukattukuppam Road, Muttukadu, 603 112.
3. Mr.Paramesh S/o Dr.K.Ravi, No.3, Ground Floor, Tilak Towers, II Link Street, Cit Colony, Chennai 600 004. ..Respondent(s) 1/6
PRAYER: To amend the Plaint as follows in the Judges Summons. For Applicant(s):
M/s.Priya Annie Zachariah Jittin.S(2105/2020) For Respondent(s):
Mr.Joseph Augustine.
ORDER
This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to amend the plaint in C.S.No.168 of 2023. 2.
The suit has been filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's alleged share in the suit schedule properties left behind by late Dr.K.Ravi. The plaintiff claims to be the daughter of late Dr.K.Ravi through Dr.R.Prema. The defendants have filed their written statements disputing the plaintiff's claim and contending that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of late Dr.K.Ravi and that he had executed a Will in favour of the defendants. 3.
According to the plaintiff, certain averments in the plaint require amendment. The plaintiff states that she is residing in the United States of America and that the plaint was filed through her power agent. It is further stated that she 2/6
had not personally reviewed the plaint at the time of institution of the suit and that, after change of vakalat, she came to know about certain erroneous and unnecessary averments. Therefore, the present amendment is sought to delete and modify certain pleadings relating to the marriage of the first defendant, the Will dated 11.02.2016, the probate proceedings and the legal heirship certificate dated 05.02.2021.
4.
A common counter affidavit has been filed by the first defendant on behalf of the defendants. The defendants have opposed the application mainly on the ground that the suit has already reached the stage of evidence. According to them, the plaint was verified by the power agent, who had no personal knowledge of the family affairs. They further contend that the plaintiff was fully aware of the facts pleaded in the plaint and that the present amendment is only an afterthought. 5.
The defendants specifically object to the deletion of the averments in paragraph 3 of the plaint relating to the marriage between late Dr.K.Ravi and the first defendant. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff, despite being fully aware of the marriage, had made a defamatory and derogatory averment that no such marriage had taken place. The first defendant states that she intends to 3/6
prosecute the plaintiff for making such irresponsible statements before this Court and that the plaintiff now seeks deletion only to escape such proceedings. It is further contended that, if the said averment is deleted, the defendants would be deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff on that pleading and serious prejudice would be caused to them.
6.
Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7.
On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants it seems, there is no serious objection raised as regards the proposed additional averments to the plaint as set out in the application but has serious objections as regards the proposed deletion of the plaint averments. As regards the objection with regard to the proposed deletion of the averment in paragraph 3, if the defendants want to resort to any legal remedy in respect of the alleged defamatory averment, allowing this amendment will not affect their right to any independent remedy.
4/6
8.
Since the basic nature of the suit remains unaltered and no irreparable prejudice will be caused to the defendants' case, the amendment deserves to be allowed. However, it is made clear that the defendants are not deemed to have admitted the correctness of the amended pleadings. 9.
Accordingly, A.No.1739 of 2026 is allowed. The Registry is directed to carry out the amendment and the plaintiff shall file the amended plaint within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 02-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AY 5/6
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
AY A No. 1739 of 2026 in C.S. No. 168 of 2023 02-07-2026 6/6