RAJAMMAL Vs. SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the petitioners. They are aggrieved against the order of the trial Court in rejecting their application filed under Order VII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file the reply statement. The respondents are the defendants. The petitioners filed the said suit for partition. It is their contention that they are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. Their claim was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. Thereafter, the present application was filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission of the Court to file reply statement. The trial Court rejected the application only on the reason that the reply statement sought to be filed by them contradicts the earlier stand taken by them in the original plaint.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Respondents 11 and 12 and perused the materials placed before this Court.

(3.) It is seen that the main grievance of the respondents/defendants before the trial Court in opposing the above application is that the plaintiffs having chosen to contend at Paragraph No. 11 of the plaint that their father Maruthakutty Gounder was entitled to 1/4th share in all the suit properties and that the plaintiffs claim that share jointly for themselves, they cannot be subsequently permitted to file a reply statement with a plea that the plaintiffs have right to the property independently of Maruthakutty Gounder and they are not claiming any right through the said person. Therefore, the above pleadings are said to be mutually destructive. The Court also accepted the said contention and rejected the application.