FRANSISCO PANDIAN Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of District Munsif, Srivaikuntam dated 03. 12. 2002 in I. A. No. 775 of 2002 in O. S. No. 136 of 2001, dismissing the Petition filed under Order VIII Rule 9 c. P. C � Receipt of Reply Statement filed by the Plaintiff. Revision petitioner is the Plaintiff.

(2.) RELEVANT facts necessitated for disposal of this Civil revision Petition could briefly be stated thus:- Suit Property relates to Nazereth Village Punjai Land S. No. 220/1. . . . . 7. 18 acres on the North Eastern side ----------------------------- Out of 9. 38 Acres New Sub Division. . . . 220/1a. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Property belonged to her Mother � Gnanammal. Plaintiff's Mother - Gnanammal executed a settlement Deed in respect of the Plaint First Schedule Property in favour of the Plaintiff. On 18. 09. 1996 and 26. 06. 1997, the Plaintiff alienated a portion of the First Schedule Property. The Plaintiff claims to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property. In the month of september 2000, the Second Defendant gave a Petition, denying the Title of the plaintiff to the Tahsildar. Upon enquiry, on 21. 08. 2001, the Tahsildar, Tiruchendur cancelled the Patta issued in favour of the Second Defendant and granted the patta to the Plaint Schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff. Without any right in the Suit Property, the Defendants have been attempting to trespass and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit in O. S. No. 136 of 2001 on the file of district Munsif, Srivaikuntam for Declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Second Schedule Property and for consequential Permanent injunction.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the order of dismissal, the Revision petitioner / Plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Assailing the Impugned Order, on behalf of the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff, placing reliance upon the decisions reported in Mrs. Vera Marie Vas And Another Vs Mrs. Joyce Primrose Preston Nee Vas And Others (2002 (3) M. L. J. 510) and M. Thangavel Pillai. . Vs. . The Commissioner, Corporation Of Tiruchirappalli (2001 (2) M. L. J. 36), it is contended that an opportunity ought to have been given to the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff to file the Reply Statement explaining the pleadings set forth in the Written Statement. It is further submitted that by filing the Reply Statement, the Plaintiff has only tried to reinforce the earlier averments in the Plaint by properly tracing the Title of her Mother-Gnanammal. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Impugned Order is vague and unsustainable.