UMAPATHY ODAYAR Vs. LAKSHMIAMMAL (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 25.04.2012 made in I.A.No.442 of 2010 in O.S.No.59 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

(2.) The petitioner is second defendant, deceased first respondent is the plaintiff, respondents 2 to 10 are the defendants 3 to 11 and respondents 11 to 13 are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff in O.S.No.59 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry. The first respondent filed the said suit for declaration of title and various other reliefs. The petitioner filed written statement on 28.10.2004 and 4th respondent filed written statement on 23.04.2004 and are contesting the suit. Trial commenced. The first respondent and petitioner let in evidence and closed their side. When the 4th respondent gave evidence as D.W.3, the petitioner has come out with the present application, I.A.No.442 of 2010 for permission to file additional written statement. According to the petitioner, the first respondent is claiming title to the suit property based on the Donation Deed dated 10.0197 The property mentioned in the Donation Deed and suit property are entirely different. In view of the same, there is no cause of action for the first respondent to institute the present suit. The petitioner came to know about the discrepancy only when the 4th respondent gave evidence.

(3.) The deceased first respondent filed counter affidavit and contended that the petitioner did not raise this issue in the written statement filed by him and he has not disputed the schedule of the property when he cross examined the respondents and when he let in evidence. The property in the Donation Deed as well as schedule of the property, suit property are correlated as per the Revenue records and Resurvey.