P BAKKIAMMAL Vs. R RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in the suit are revision petitioners in c. R. P. No. 2173 to 2175 of 2004 and the C. R. Ps. are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The proposed parties in the suit are the petitioners in c. R. P. Nos. 358 and 359 of 2005. The plaintiffs, who are the 1st and 2nd respondents in the revisions, have filed the suit in O. S. No. 4634 of 1999 for partition claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties, which consist of 5 items. The defendants 1 to 11, who are the revision petitioners in c. R. P. No. 2173 to 2175 of 2004, have filed the written statement. The suit filed by the sisters against the brother and legal heirs. The plaintiffs have filed i. A. No. 6456 of 2002 in O. S. NO. 4634 of 1999 for impleading proposed parties as defendants 12 to 50 on the basis that they are the transferees of the properties belonging to the partnership firm, created by their father S. A. Periyasamy nadar and stating that the defendants have alienated the said properties, which were notified under the Land acquisition Act, 1894. The alienation, according to the plaintiffs is to the extent of 26. 76 acres stated in the A schedule to the petition and 7. 94 acres in the B Schedule of the petition. They have also filed I. A. No. 6457 of 2002 for an injunction from alienating the said properties. That apart, the plaintiffs have also filed I. A. No. 3249 of 2001 in the said suit for a direction against the first respondent / first defendant to furnish details or to produce the copies of sale deeds with regard to the said Schedule A and B properties mentioned in the petition.

(2.) THE said petitions were opposed by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs were aware of the said properties and they have executed release deed realizing that they have no right over the properties and the plaintiffs have also purchased the portion of the properties and therefore, they were aware of the land acquisition proceedings, in which notices have been sent to them also. The said petitions for impleading in I. A. No. 2173 of 2004 has been allowed, against which the defendants, who are respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 14 have filed C. R. P. No. 2173 of 2004. Likewise, I. A. No. 6457 of 2002 praying for an order of injunction was also allowed, against which they have filed c. R. P. No. 2174 of 2004. The other application in I. A. No. 3249 of 2001 for a direction to furnish details and produce the copies of sale deed was also allowed, against which the c. R. P. No. 2175 of 2004 has been filed by them. Likewise the purchasers, who have been impleaded against whom an order of injunction has been passed by the Trail Court in I. A. No. 6456 of 2002 and I. A. No. 6457 of 2002 have filed C. R. P. No. 358 and 359 of 2004.

(3.) IT is the case of the revision petitioners that the said two properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the interlocutory Applications filed by the plaintiffs, were not available for partition and it was due to that reason, even though in the suit notice given on behalf of the plaintiffs, the same was not included. Further, since all the sales have taken place as early as in the year 1995 much before the filing of the suit which was filed in the year 1999, the plaintiffs have voluntarily left out the said properties.