1. The legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff and the second plaintiff in O.S.No. 598 of 1986, Additional District Munsifs Court, Tindivanam, have preferred this civil revision petition against the order passed by the Court below, holding that the partition deed dated 111. 1953 is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes. In order to appreciate the circumstances giving rise to this question, it is necessary to very briefly refer to the facts. According to the case of the petitioners, one Vaithyalinga Mudaliar (fifth defendant in the suit) was the owner of the A and B schedule properties in the suit. On 21. 1984, a document of exchange was executed between Vaithylinga and another Palani (not a party to the suit) in and by which the A schedule properties were to be taken by Palani and the properties belonging to Palani were to be taken by the fifth defendant. Palani is stated to have sold on 112. 1985 the properties obtained by him under the deed of exchange viz. A schedule properties in the suit to the first plaintiff in O.S. No.598 of 1986, who died on 12. 1989 and whose legal representatives are the petitioners herein. Similarly, on 12. 1984, Vaithyl