(1.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff before the lower court.
(2.) THIS civil revision petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order of the learned District Munsif at Krishnagiri passed in 8.12.1997 in the amendment application in I.A.No.1284 of 1997 in O.S.No.l61 of 1993.
(3.) SUCH was not the case before us. Here is a case where the 1 st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property. While so, according to the 1 st respondent/plaintiff, the defendants herein trespassed into the suit property after the filing of the present suit. So the facts in the present case are totally different from the facts in the Supreme Court case reported in Radhika Devi v. Bajrangh Singh, (1996)7 S.C.C. 486 wherein a gift deed is attacked and challenged as a fraudulent document in which case the suit should have been filed within three years to set aside the fraudulent gift deed therein. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1996)7 S.C.C. 486 will have no application to the facts of the present case before us.