KALAIVANI ALIAS DEVASENA Vs. J RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed against the Ortler dated 13.4.2005 made in O.S. No. 13 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Perambalur.

(2.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 13 of 2004 are the revision petitioner herein.

(3.) O.S. No. 13 of 2004 has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants/respondents herein for passing a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/6th share in 'B' and 'C schedule properties, them pass a final decree directing division of 'A', 'B' and 'C schedule properties, by metes and bounds and allot separate properties for the plaintiffs 5/6th share in 'A' schedule and 5/18th share in 'B' and 'C schedule properties and for rendition of accounts. Written statement was filed by the first defendant as the first defendant was sole and exclusive owner of the properties described in Plaint 'A' and 'C schedule properties. Further, it was a case of the first defendant that he only purchased this properties with his own funds. Thus, the Suit was hotly contested. During the trial of the Suit, a document styled as memo of partial Partition in the Hindu undivided family of J. Ramu Chettiyar, Ariyalur dated 31.3.1973 was sought to be marked through P. W. 1. In the Plaint, it was contended that there was a Partial Partition in March 1973, in which one Mr, Krishnan who was one other than the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff was allotted 'A' schedule properties which are situated in Ariyalur town and at the time of partial partition, the said Krishnan was minor. After the partial partition, the said Krishnan was minor. After the partial partition was effected, a partial partition list dated 31.3.1973 was prepared and the first defendant/first respondent herein also signed on behalf of his then minor sons which included Krishnan as well as the third defendant. Further, the said partial partition was acted upon and the same was also sent to numerous Government departments. When this document was sought to be marked, the sane was objected to by the first defendant by filing a Memo objecting to the said marking of the said partition list on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence. The learned judge allowed the memo filed by the first defendant by an order dated 13.4.2005. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs have filed the above Revision Petition before this Court.