MUTHIAH MUDALIAR Vs. DHANDAPANI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 to 4 in the suit are the revision petitioners before me. The first respondent plaintiff filed the suit for partition in respect of the schedule properties in the plaint. The first defendant in the suit who is now the second respondent before me contended before the trial Court that a registered partition had already taken place in the family in the year 1958 and therefore, a second partition does not lie. The first defendant further contended that many of the suit items are his self-acquired properties which are not liable for partition. DEFENDANTS 2 to 4 who are the present revision petitioners filed a written statement through their counsel and admitted in their written -statement that a registered partition had taken place in e family on 23rd November, 1973, and specifically stated that nothing remained to be divided after the said partition. The petitioners herein further contended that there is no question of accounting between the parties and that the first defendant is doing business separately and that he has nothing to do with the family. It is common ground that the suit was filed in the year 1982 and the suit was listed for trial and the case taken up. P. W. 1 was examined and cross examined. At that stage, defendants 2 to 4 filed an application to file an additional written statement and on objection by the first defendant-second respondent, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application. Hence, the revision.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that these defendants could not give all the particulars in the original written statement and that they are giving only additional particulars in the proposed written statement. LEARNED counsel also cited certain rulings before me which are as follows.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the order of the lower Court is confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.