S KARUPPIAH Vs. JEYAKODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned district Munsif Court, Thirumangalam in I. A. No. 879 of 2006 in O. S. No. 208 of 1998 dated 19. 07. 2007.

(2.) THE respondent filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and other brothers. The petitioner entered appearance through his advocate mr. M. Subramanian. He was under the bonafide belief that the suit was filed only in respect of the house property of his father and that the counsel did not inform him about the 2nd item of the suit property, viz. Punja land, absolutely belonged to him and the aforesaid fact was suppressed by the counsel. The petitioner could not file his written statement in the main suit and therefore, an exparte preliminary decree was passed against him on 22. 06. 2001. He filed a petition to set aside the exparte preliminary decree along with the petition in I. A. No. 879 of 2006 to condone the delay. There was a delay of 1614 days as the petitioner came to know about the exparte decree when the Commissioner informed the matter to the village Administrative Officer, Vilachery. The Commissioner in the final decree also stated that item II of the suit property patta stands only in the name of adi Dravidar Tahsildar. The Commissioner also stated that item I of suit property was already partitioned. Hence the petition.

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter stating that the petition is not maintainable. The said suit in O. S. No. 806 of 1989 was filed on the file of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai and the petitioner received summons and appeared through his counsel. He did not file any written statement and so, he was set exparte in the year 1989 itself. Then, during the pendency of the case, the suit was transferred to district Munsif, Madurai Taluk and re-numbered as O. S. No. 186 of 1996. Subsequently, it was transferred to District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and renumbered as O. S. 208 of 1988. On 22. 06. 2001 the Court has passed a preliminary decree. In the light of the aforesaid preliminary decree, the respondent has filed a petition seeking to pass a final decree. The petitioner received the notice in the final decree proceedings. He did not appear. Hence, on 11. 03. 2004, the petitioner was set ex parte and the Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property. The Commissioner inspected the suit property and filed a report. He has no locus-standi to file the suit at this stage and the petitioner has got no bonafide belief that the suit for partition was filed only with reference to the house property. His claim that his counsel suppressed the truth is not correct. The petitioner purchased the 2nd item of the property from and out of the income derived from the joint family property. The respondent is not aware of the acquisition of the property by the Tahsildar. He has also given complaint to the District Collector not to give patta in favour of the petitioner alone and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.