RUKKU AND ANOTHER Vs. K.SIVAGNANAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions are filed to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated 07.02.2015 made in I.A. Nos.169 to 171 of 2015 in O.S.No.387 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thirupattur, Vellore District.

(2.) The parties and the issues involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same. Therefore, disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The petitioners are the defendants 3 and 4, first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 6 are the defendants 2 and 5 to 8 in O.S.No.387 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thirupattur, Vellore District. Originally, the first respondent filed the said suit against one Nachiammal since deceased and respondents 2, 3 and petitioners for declaration that settlement deed dated 20.02.2008 executed by the deceased Nachiammal and second respondent in favour of the petitioners and sale deed dated 16.09.2009 executed by the deceased Nachiammal, second respondent and petitioners through their Power of Attorney to the third respondent as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners, deceased Nachiammal and respondents 2 to 6 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioners filed written statement on 29.04.2013 and are contesting the suit. The parties let in evidence and closed their side. When the suit is posted for arguments, the first respondent filed three applications viz., I.A. Nos.169 to 171 of 2015 under section 151 of C.P.C to reopen the case, recall the deposition of second respondent and to receive additional documents in O.S.No.86 of 2009. According to the first respondent, the second respondent herein, in the earlier suit O.S.No.86 of 2009 has deposed as D.W.3 and admitted that suit property was already sold to Rajammal, mother of the first respondent by sale deed dated 27.11.1968. The second respondent is the second defendant in the present suit and remained exparte in the present suit. The petitioners who claimed title through the second respondent have failed to examine the second respondent/second defendant to substantiate their claim. According to the first respondent, had second respondent being examined, he should have cross examined second respondent with regard to his admission of sale in favour of the first respondent's mother. In the circumstances, the first respondent has filed the above three applications for the relief stated above.