G. CHANDRA Vs. M. AMUTHAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 passed in C.M.A.No.19 of 2008 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Salem, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 9.4.2008 passed in I.A.No.433 of 2008 in O.S.No.94 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

(2.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants 1 to 4. The respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant. The first defendant is the wife of late S.N. Govindarajan. Defendants 2 to 4 are also daughters of late S.N. Govindarajan. The suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule property. A written statement was filed by the first defendant, the wife of late S.N. Govindarajan and mother of the plaintiff. The said written statement was adopted by the other defendants, viz., defendants 2 to 4, who are the revision petitioners herein. The trial commenced on 29.1.2008. The plaintiff's side evidence was closed and posted for defendants' side evidence, at that point of time, a petition under Order 8, Rule 9 read with Section 151, CPC was filed stating that the petitioners herein, who are defendants, want to file additional written statement. The proposed additional written statement filed by the third defendant states that the plaintiff borrowed Rs.1,25,000/ - on 10.12.2001 and Rs.3,00,000/ - on 4.9.2006 from the mother, viz., the first defendant and did not repay the principal and interest. It is further averred that when the defendants 2 to 4 demanded repayment of the said amount with interest, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition. Para 4 of the proposed additional written statement which is relevant for the present adjudication reads as follows:

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a detailed counter and stated that the trial has commenced, plaintiff's side evidence was closed and when the matter was listed for defendants' side evidence, they came forward with the plea of set off. There is undue delay on the part of the defendants in filing the petition. The illness of the mother for the alleged delay is denied. In the written statement that has already been filed, the said plea is not raised. The new plea has no relevance to the partition suit. The allegation of borrowing the amount from the first defendant is also denied. The specific plea is that the partition suit is with regard to the plaintiff's right over the property of the father and not that of the mother of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plea of borrowing money from the first defendant is wrong and emphatically denied.