S R RANGADURAI Vs. S RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 25.02.2009 made in I.A.No.1064/2008 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem.

(2.) The petitioners are plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem. The petitioners filed the said suit for partition and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in the final decree proceedings. The respondents 2 to 4 filed written statement on 18.07.2000 and additional written statement on 13.06.2008. Trial commenced. The petitioners examined Pws 1 to 3 and closed their side of evidence. The first respondent was examined as DW1. The DW1 chief examination was over and when the suit was posted for cross examination, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1064 of 2008 to implead one Thangamani as 12th defendant in the suit. According to the petitioner, the respondents 2 to 4, in the additional written statement had stated that 7th item of the property belongs absolutely to the proposed party, Thangamani. In view of the same, the said Thangamani is proper and necessary party to the suit.

(3.) The second respondent filed counter affidavit and the same was adopted by the respondents 3 and 4. The respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the partition was effected in the year 1976 as per the Ex.A5, dated 21.06.1976 and all the family members were allotted separate properties. The respondents 2 to 4 and other family members are in possession and enjoyment of the property allotted to them and they deal with the same as owners. The first respondent/petitioners' father left the joint family in the year 1976 itself. The petitioners grand father V.N.V.Srinivasan sold the property to the respondents 2 to 4 and first respondent executed a Release Deed dated 12.12.1977. In the partition deed, Ex.A5 dated 21.06.1976, it has been specifically mentioned that all the properties belonging to the family were partitioned and there is no other property to be partitioned. In the year 1993, by the sale deed dated 24.11.1993, the second respondent purchased the the 7th item of the property from and out of his own earnings, in the name of his wife, Thangamani from kuppammal and others. It is not a joint family property and therefore it is not liable to be partitioned. The respondents 2 to 4 had stated that one property standing in the name of R.Sasikala, mother of the petitioner, wife of the first respondent. The said property had been purchased in the year 1990 in the name of R.Sasikala. In the circumstances, the claim of the petitioners that property purchased on 24.11.1993 in the name of Thangamani, wife of second respondent is joint family property is not correct and only to harass the second respondent and cause hardship, the present application has been filed and prayed for dismissal of the plaint.