ORDER: Aggrieved by an order dated 14.6.2001 in I.A. No.1876 of 2000 permitting the respondent in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001/1st defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997, to file an additional written statement in O.S. No.64 of 1997 laid by the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001 for (i) declaration of title of the revision petitioner/ plaintiff over the suit items; (ii) recovery of possession; (iii) past profits of Rs.12,000.00 against the defendant; (iv) future profits to be determined under O.20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff in O.S. No.64 of 1997 had filed the above revision.

2. Admittedly, the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001/ plaintiff in O.S. No.64 of 1997 and the second defendant are brothers and the respondent in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001/ first defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997 is the son of the second defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997.

3. The suit O.S. No.64 of 1997 filed by the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001 was resisted by the defendants therein on the ground that the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001/ plaintiff had already executed a Will on 5.1.1997 in favour of the second defendant and simultaneously the plaintiff had also agreed to sell the properties to the defendants by an agreement dated 25.8.1986. While the first defendant in his written statement dated 22.9.1997 alleged that the said agreement of sale dated 25.8.1986 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant, the second defendant in his written statement dated 16.6.1998 alleged that the agreement was executed in favour of the second defendant. Hence, to clarify the finding that the agreement dated 25.8.1986 was executed only in favour of the second defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997, the respondent in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001/ first defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997, sought permission in I.A. No.1876 of 2000 to file an additional written statement. However, the same was resisted by the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No.2809 of 2001/ plaintiff in O.S. No.64 of 1997 on the ground that the respondent in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001/ first defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997 proposed to project a new case deliberately. The learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, accepting the case of the respondent in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001/ first defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997 permitted him to file an additional written statement. Hence, the revision petitioner/ plaintiff had preferred the above revision C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001.

4. In the meanwhile, the second defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997 filed O.S. No.72 of 1998 based on the agreement dated 25.8.1976 seeking specific performance of the agreement. The second defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997 (plaintiff in O.S. No.72 of 1998) finding that the case mainly rests on the agreement dated 25.8.1996, filed I.A. No.1189 of 2000 seeking permission to file a photocopy of the agreement dated 25.8.1996, marked as Ex.A-1, alleging that the original is with the plaintiff in O.S. No.64 of 1997 (defendant in O.S. No.72 of 1998) contending that photocopy of the agreement cannot be marked as evidence. The learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, by order dated 11.12.2000, accepting the case of the plaintiff in O.S. No.64 of 1997 (defendant in O.S. No.72 of 1998) refused to permit the second defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997 (plaintiff in O.S. No.72 of 1998) to mark the photocopy of the agreement dated 25.8.1996. Hence, the second defendant in O.S. No.64 of 1997 (plaintiff in O.S. No.72 of 1998) preferred C.R.P. No.1643 of 2001.

5. In precise, the petitioner in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001 (plaintiff in suit O.S. No.64 of 1997) is the respondent in C.R.P. No.1643 of 2001 filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.72 of 1998 who is nonetheless the father of the respondent in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001 is the respondent in C.R.P. No.1643 of 2001 and the petitioner in C.R.P. No.1643 of 2001 sails with his son, the respondent in C.R.P. No.2808 of 2001.

6. Mr.Kesavan, learned counsel appearing for the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document