1. The matter came up for preliminary hearing ‘B’ Group on 05.01.2018 and Miss Varsha R. Iyengar, learned counsel for the petitioners was heard in full, none appears for the respondent. In order to give one more opportunity, Court has directed to post the matter next week. Again, when the matter was posted on 12.01.2018, Court directed to post the matter next week. Again, on 19.01.2018, though case called twice, none appears for the respondent. In order to give one more opportunity, finally, one week’s time was granted to the learned counsel for the respondent to address his arguments, failing which the matter would be heard on the next date of hearing on behalf of the petitioners. Even though, on two occasions, time was granted for the respondent’s counsel to appear and argue, none appears for the respondent. Therefore, this Court has no option except to proceed with the hearing of the counsel for the petitioners.

2. The legal representatives of the original plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 29.08.2015 on I.A. No.5 made in O.S. No.236/2009 rejecting the application filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The mother of the plaintiffs Smt. Susheelamma originally filed a suit in O.S. No.236/2009 against the defendant (son) for declaration of title and permanent injunction contending that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff who purchased under the registered Sale Deed dated 26.07.1974 out of her own earnings and it is her self-acquired property. The defendant has no manner of right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiff filed a suit. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff-Smt. Sushelamma died. Therefore present petitioners who are the legal representatives were brought on record.

4. The defendant has filed the written statement denied the plaint averments and contended that it is not the self-acquired property of the plaintiff alone and the property was purchased by the plaintiff’s husband in her name by selling the joint family properties and from the earnings of the defendant’s father. The plaintiff is the only name lender to the transaction and sale deed. The plaintiff has not at all contributed any amount of money in any form or shape in purchasing the suit property. Earlier plaintiff’s husband i.e., father of the defendant purchased the house and site property in her name. The property purchased was for family benefit. Plaintiff has not at all having any property/income source, therefore the question of self-acquired property does not arise. It is further contended that owing to responsibility of maintaining the entire affairs of the family consisted of plaintiff, her husband and three daughters, the defendant was forced to engage in business. Out of his complete earnings, the defendant has improved the suit property, house properties and has performed the marriage of all the sisters by investing his money by incurring debts. The defendant is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff (including the sisters of the defendant) are not at all having any sort of right, interest, possession or whatsoever over the suit schedule property. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. After death of the original plaintiff, the legal representatives-present petitioners were brought on record and they have filed application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure contending that the original plaintiff died on 06.07.2013 leaving behind petitioners (daughters) and defendant (son). The suit schedule property belongs to joint family property and they are entitled to equal share i.e., 1/4th share each. Therefore, they sought for partition by amending the plaint.

6. The said application was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the very application filed for amendment w