MARAYAMMAL Vs. R KAMALATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MARYAMMAL, the petitioner is the second defendant. After completion of trial, she filed four applications in I. A. Nos. 283, 284, 285 and 286 of 2002 to reopen the case, to recall of the petitioner (D. W. 1) again and to produce the Revenue records and the records pertaining to the electricity service connection which would be relevant to prove her possession in respect of the suit property. These applications were dismissed through a common order. Hence, these separate revisions.

(2.) THE respondents filed a suit for partition and separate possession. According to the plaintiffs, Chennamalai, the father had two wives, namely Angayammal and Poovayee. Out of their wedlock, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 were born. THE father Chennamalai executed a settlement deed in favour of their mother in respect of'a'Schedule property. On the death of their mother, "5 share would devolve on the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3. In respect of'b'Schedule property, the children would have % share. THE first and third defendants supported the case of the plaintiffs.

(3.) MR. A. K. Kumarasamy, the learned counsel for the caveators/respondents would refute this contention by justifying the reasonings given by the trial Court in the impugned order.