(1.) The petitioners are the defendants 4 & 6 to 11 in the suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent herein namely O. S. No. 203/98 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai. The suit was dismissed. Against that, an appeal was filed before this Court in A. S. No.256/81. That was also dismissed. Against that, L.P. A. No. 129/2002 and S. A. No. 769/83 were filed and they were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court granting a decree for partition of 8/21 share for items 12 and 13 and 1/7th share in items 1 to 11.
(2.) The properties in respect of which the dispute arose belongs to one Appadurai who had two wives. The plaintiff and defendants 4, 5 and 6 were children through the first wife. The second wife was the first defendant and defendants 2 and 3 were her son and daughter respectively. The defendants 7 to 11 were the tenants. The defendants 1 and 2 claimed that they were beneficiaries under the Will executed by the late Appadurai. The Division Bench rejected the Will. The plaintiff who is the first respondent herein claimed that the properties were joint family property and therefore he was entitled to a larger share. This was also rejected by the Division Bench holding that the properties were self acquired properties. This finding has become final. Therefore, as the legal heirs of Appadurai, we have the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 above, totally seven persons. The Division Bench declared the share of the plaintiff as being l/7th share.
(3.) It is relevant to note that though the written application was filed by the defendant 1 & 2 separately and 4th defendant separately, the 6th defendant remained ex-parte. The defendants 4 and 5 admitted the claim of the plaintiff and also claimed that they had share in the property. This civil revision petition arises out of the application filed by the 4th defendant, who is the first petitioner, and on behalf of the other petitioners. He had filed this application for amendment of the preliminary decree declaring their rights in the suit property along the lines mentioned in the affidavit which referred to the judgment in the L. P. A. This was resisted by the respondent herein on the ground that the parties who had remained ex parte and who had not challenged the dismissal of the suit were not entitled to take advantage of the preliminary decree granted by the Division Bench and that their remedy if any, is to file a fresh suit.