LAKSHMI Vs. E DAVAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal heirs of the sole defendant are the revision petitioners. They filed the present revisions as against the dismissal of the two I. A. Nos:8458 and 8459 of 2005 which have been filed respectively (i) to reopen the enquiry for the purpose of marking subpoena documents and recording oral evidence and (ii) to issue Subpoena Summons to the Tahsildar of Purasawalkkam Taluk, Chennai for the purpose of production of documents (patta extracts with measurements in respect of T. S. No:71,71/1, 712 and 71/3 of Ayanavaram Village and for giving oral evidence on those documents.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondents herein (legal heirs of the sole plaintiff) filed the suit for partition and for separate possession. The suit is of the year 1977. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial court on 18. 7. 1983 in the said suit. The defendant preferred first appeal in A. S. No:384/1984 against the same. The First Appeal was dismissed confirming the preliminary decree. Subsequently the defendant preferred S. A. No:649 of 1987 before this Court. This court set aside the preliminary decree and allowed the Second Appeal. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff preferred SLP before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No:8720/97. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court in the Second Appeal and confirmed the preliminary decree of the trial court by order dated 26. 9. 2003.

(3.) A final decree application in I. A. No:10461/84 for dividing the properties into two shares between the parties and for separate possession was pending before the trial court for more than two decades. Two Advocate commissioners were also appointed to divide the suit property and to submit their report. They also inspected and given interim as well as final reports demarcating the suit property. At the time of inspection, the defendant raised an objection that the suit property is not in Survey No. 71/2 but in 71/1 and to that effect they filed an I. A. No. 8391/1991 and sought for Taluk Surveyor's assistance to the Advocate Commissioners in order to locate and ascertain the suit property. The plaintiff filed counter stating that the suit property is situate within the four boundaries along with building bearing Door Nos:96 and 96/1. After perusal of the records and hearing both sides, the court below dismissed the sand Interlocutory Application on 29. 4. 1992 holding that the Commissioner is able to locate the suit property an there is no need to appoint a Taluk Surveyor. Against the said order, the defendant neither preferred any appeal nor revision and it became final.