MUTHU PILLAI Vs. SERUVAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are directed against the common order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in C.M.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 1986 dismissing the appeals filed by the revision-petitioner.

(2.) THE facts which give rise to these revisions are briefly as follows:THE respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.122 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur against this revision petitioner, who is the fifth defendant in the suit, and 15 others, for partition and separate possession of her l/6thshare in the suit properties. THE revision petitioner was set ex parte. A preliminary decree was passed in the above suit on 18-8-1978 and a final decree was passed on 18-1-1984. According to the revision-petitioner, she came to know of the passing of the preliminary decree and the final decree only on 18-1-1985 when the Amin of the Court along with the village officials and the Surveyor came in a body in connection with the execution of these decrees. On her objection, they returned without executing the decree. THEreafter she consulted her lawyer and filed the applications. She filed I.A.No.37 of 1985 and I.A.No.38 of 1985 to set aside the preliminary decree and the final decree respectively. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that her name is Muthupillai and not Mookkathal and no summons or notice was served on her. THEre was no such person as Mookathal in the village. THEre was no proper service of the summons and that the respondent-plaintiff in collusion with her brother (16th defendant) created records and obtained the decree. Since, the applications were filed immediately on coming to know of the passing of the decree, they were not barred by limitation. Further, she has got valid defence in the suit. Hence she field the two applications.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision-petitioner mainly contended that the name of the petitioner is only Muthupillai and both the Courts below ought to have accepted the two documents, namely, Ex.A.l Record-sheet, and Ex.A.2 Voters' List filed on behalf of the petitioner and held that her name is not Mookathal but only Muthupillai. Further, even in the previous suit O.S.No.331 of 1972 the petitioner filed Vakalat only as Muthupiliai. According to the learned counsel, both the courts below overlooked the fact that at no time, any notice was served on the petitioner either by post or through Court nd that the petitioner came to know of the proceedings only on 18-1-1985.