MURUGESAN Vs. KUPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the plaintiffs, as against the rejection of the memo filed by them to record the death of the first defendant.

(2.) THE revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit properties by passing a preliminary decree and separate possession of plaintiffs' 2/5th share an to make provision for appointment of an Commissioner to divide the suit properties as per the preliminary decree and to pass a final decree accordingly. THE two plaintiffs are sons of the first defendant. THE second defendant is the mother and other defendants are siblings of the defendants.

(3.) ON a consideration of the memo and the counter filed by the defendants, the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram dismissed the said I.A., holding that the plaintiffs have not stated the date of death of the first defendant which is most crucial to decide the issue of survivorship. Further, the memo is very belated and cannot be entertained and therefore the memo cannot be recorded. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiffs.