MUNUSAMY KOUNDER Vs. BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order dated 14.6.2001 in I.A.No.1876 of 2000 permitting the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/1st defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997, to file an additional written statement in O.S.No.64 of 1997 laid by the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001 for (i) declaration of title of the revision petitioner/plaintiff over the suit items; (ii) recovery of possession; (iii) past profits of Rs.12,000.00 against the defendant; (iv) future profits to be determined under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1997 had filed the above revision.

(2.) Admittedly, the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1997 and the second defendant are brothers and the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/first defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997 is the son of the second defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997.

(3.) The suit O.S.No.64 of 1997 filed by the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001 was resisted by the defendants therein on the ground that the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/plaintiff had already executed a Will on 5.1.1997 in favour of the second defendant and simultaneously the plaintiff had also agreed to sell the properties to the defendants by an agreement dated 25.8.1986. While the first defendant in his written statement dated 22.9.1997 alleged that the said agreement of sale dated 25.8.1986 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant, the second defendant in his written statement dated 16.6.1998 alleged that the agreement was executed in favour of the second defendant. Hence, to clarify the finding that the agreement dated 25.8.1986 was executed only in favour of the second defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997, the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/first defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997 sought permission in I.A.No.1876 of 2000 to file an additional written statement. However, the same was resisted by the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1997 on the ground that the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/first defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997 proposed to project a new case deliberately. The learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, accepting the case of the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/first defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997 permitted him to file an additional written statement. Hence, the revision petitioner/plaintiff had preferred the above revision C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001.