SAROJA AMMAL Vs. ANNADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff and she filed I.A.No.2011/2009 in O.S.No.123/2004, on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, praying for leave to file reply statement to the written statement filed by the first defendant, and the said application after contest, came to be dismissed by the said Court vide fair and decretal orders dated 30.11.2009, and aggrieved by the same, has filed this revision.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to one Ponnukannu Padayachi, son of Adeenamozhi Padayachi, and he has executed a settlement deed dated 2.3.1937, in favour of Kathayee Ammal and others, and it was also acted upon. The plaintiff would further contend that Ponnukannu Padayachi died about 65 years ago and after his demise, his legatees had taken possession of the properties, which are the subject matter of the suit, and were in possession and enjoyment of the same and the husband of the plaintiff viz. Venkatakrishnan, is a close relative of Ponnukannu Padayachi and therefore, Muthukumaraswamy Padayachi, one of the legatees, had entrusted custody of the suit property in his favour to cultivate the same on his behalf and accordingly, the husband of the plaintiff was in possession for the past 35 years. The plaintiff would further contend that on 23.9.2002, Muthukumaraswamy Padayachi sold the entire extent including the suit property, in her favour by means of a registered sale deed and by virtue of the same, she is entitled to have a decree for declaration and recovery of possession.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the plaintiff came forward to file I.A.No.2011/2009 under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. praying for leave to file reply statement, by stating that that she has to clarify certain points raised in the written statement.