NAMACHIVAYAM Vs. ANANDHARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.07.2011, made in I.A.No.1377 of 2010 in O.S.No.597 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif, Tindivanam.

(2.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs, respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.597 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif, Tindivanam. Petitioners filed the said suit against the respondents for declaration of their title to the suit property and consequently for a permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. According to the petitioners, the suit property originally belonged to one Santhanakrishna Udayar and his wife, Ganthamani ammal. Due to love and affection, they executed a will dated 11.08.1989 and codicil dated 11.07.1999, bequeathing property to second respondent and her husband, third respondent. After death of original owner, the second petitioner purchased the property from the respondents 2 and 3, by the deed of sale dated 25.08.2004. The second petitioner sold the said property by the deed of sale dated 28.06.2007 to the first petitioner. The first respondent, without any right claimed title, as adopted son of Santhanakrishna Udayar and Ganthamani ammal and disputed the will dated 11.08.1989 and codicil dated 11.07.1999. He also claims that Santhanakrishna Udayar executed a will on 27.09.2001 in his favour. In the circumstances, the petitioners filed suit and subsequently, the petitioner also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1377 of 2010 for permission to the petitioners to examine the third respondent, Sowriraja Udayar as first witness on the petitioner side to speak about the genuineness of the will.

(3.) The first respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that an Advocate of the petitioners, appearing at the instigation of the advocate of the third respondent has filed petition, without consent of the petitioners. The second petitioner/first plaintiff has not appeared before the Court. The Advocate for the petitioners have appointed his junior to appear for the respondents 2 and 3. An exparte order passed against the respondents 2 and 3 was set aside, without notice to the first respondent. The petitioners can examine the third respondent, only after examining themselves as witness. There is no provision in law to examine third respondent as plaintiffs' witness. Only to drag on the proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present petition and prayed for dismissal of the application.