S MURUGESAN Vs. S PETHAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/plaintiffs 2 to 4 aggrieved by the order passed by the court below, allowing the application filed by the first defendant/first respondent in I.A. No. 106 of 1998 in O.S. No. 249 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, have filed the above revision in C.R.P. No. 2090 of 1998.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed an application in I.A. No. 118 of 1998 in O.S. No. 249 of 1994 on the file of Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, to accept the reply statement in the suit which was rejected by the court below, and, aggrieved against the same, they have filed another revision in C.R.P. No. 2091 of 1998.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking a decree for partition of the suit properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of one Subramania Pillai who died on 20-11-1993, leaving his wife, the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. The first plaintiff also died on 17-7-1994 intestate. According to the plaintiffs, 2 to 4 and the defendants 1 to 3 are her heirs. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement it is stated that the deceased Subramania Pillai executed a Will dated 20-12-1990 in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 and registered the same and so the plaintiffs are not having any right in the suit properties. To prove their case, the defendants examined one Rajagopala Iyengar as D.W. 2. In the chief-examination held on 16-3-1998 he has spoken to about the attestation of the Will. Ex. B-3. The cross-examination was held on 31-3-1998. In the said cross-examination, he has stated that he had attested the another Will Ex.A-6. He was also cross-examined by the defendants. Thereafter, the first defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 106 of 1998 to permit the defendants to cross-examine D.W. 2 as he has deposed about Ex.A-6, and to bring out and test the truth about the same, they should be permitted to cross-examine him. The same was contested by the plaintiffs. But the court below allowed that petition. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 filed the above revision in C.R.P. No. 2090 of 1998.