SUBRAMANI Vs. KALIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in I.A. No. 42 of 2013 in O.S. No. 26 of 2013.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit O.S. No. 26 of 2013 pending on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam. The said suit was filed by the respondent for partition in respect of the suit schedule properties as he claims that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and he has shares in the same along with the petitioners/defendants. The petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No. 42 of 2013 in O.S. No. 26 of 2013 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking for rejection of plaint filed in O.S. No. 26 of 2013 on the ground that there is no cause of action, since the suit schedule property has already been allotted to the petitioners/defendants under a oral partition which has been affirmed by a document dated 10.04.1989. It is also the case of the petitioners/defendants that the respondent/plaintiff has accepted the said oral partition and it was also acted upon by the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) As seen from the counter affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 42 of 2013, the statement of the petitioners/defendants has been disputed and according to the respondent/plaintiff, there is no oral partition between the family members as alleged by the petitioners/defendants in I.A. No. 42 of 2013.