S RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. KRISHNASWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. Rule Ps. Non. 859 and 850 of 1921.

(2.) These civil revision petitions relate to two orders passed by the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, dated, respectively, 12 November 1921 and 29 November 1921 whith run as follows: It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that Issues Nos. 3, 4 and 9 being preliminary Issues should be tried first. The case was being posted along with Original Suit No. 8 of 1917 on the belief that the parties in this suit wilt agree to the evidence recorded in Original Snit No. 8 of 1917 being treated as evidence in this suit also. But the learned Vakil for the plaintiff in this snit urges that on the pleadings without any farther evidence being let in he is prepared to substantiate his case as against the defendant on Issues Nos. 3, 4 and 9 and I cannot say that he had no right so to contend. The suit is posted for argument on Issues Nor. 3, 4 and 9 to 1 December. Note:---The plaintiffs Vakil states that he does not give up thereby the other issues and 2, "This is opposed by plaintiff. The suit is posted for preliminary argument to 1 December after consideration. I see no reason to reconsider my order already passed. Rejected.

(3.) The suit in which they were parsed is Original Suit No. 56 of 1920 and is brought by the plaintiff, a son, against his father, far the recovery of certain land which had come to the latter under a se-called "deed of indenture" dated 11 May 1905. This deed was made between one Tirnnarayana Pillai and the present petitioner and recites that Tirnnarayana had become entitled to certain properties as reversionary heir of one Venkatakrishna Pillai on the death of the latter's mother in 1905 : that plaintiff (here in) contended that the mother of Venkatakrishna Pillai had adopted him, which adoption was admittedly not valid as no authority had been given by the sapindas. The father took possession of the properties given by the indenture on behalf of his son. In 1906 the father discovered that Tirunarayana was not an heir of the deceased Venkatakrishna Pillai at all and he thereupon in stinted a Suit No. 8 of 1917 for, inter alia, setting aside the deed of indenture as having been executed by him owing to the fraud of Tirunarayana This suit has been partly heard but according to the note of the Subordinate Judge it has been adjourned from time to time along with the present suit and on 4 October 1921 an order was passed adjourning Original Suit No. 5 of 920 to 1 November 192 for arguments and orders whether this is to go with Original suit No. 8 of 1917 or to bewared separately. Toe order was passed on 12 November 1921 and is one of those now sought to be revised There has been a very full argument before me on both sides and the complaint of the defendant (father) in the shit is that not only was the order irregularly made but the action of the Subordinate Judge in directing Issues Non. 3, 4 and 9 to be tried as preliminary issues will seriously prejudice im. the issues in question are as follows: 3. Whether the defendant is entitled to rely upon any such possession even after the deed of indenture dated. (sic)h May 1(sic)05 and whether the defendant is not estopped from setting up such possession in his own right as against the plaintiff?