These Revisions have been directed against the orders passed by the Lower Court in C.M.P.Nos.30/2007,32/2007 and 33/2007 in A.S.No.670/2005 dated 11.07.2008.

2. The petitioners herein are the 4th and 5th respondent in the petition filed before the Lower Court and ranked as respondents 5 and 6 in the appeal. The petitioner before the lower court is the 1st respondent herein. The relief against respondents 2 to 4 have come up in these revisions.

3. Lower court had permitted the 1st respondent/appellant/plaintiff to amend the plaint as sought for by him at the appellate stage in all the following three applications.

C.M.P.No.30/2007: was filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the lower court seeking to amend the survey number of the suit property as 1451 instead of 1457 wherever it occurs in the plaint.

C.M.P.No.32/2007: was filed by the 1st respondent/appellant to amend the schedule in the plaint by giving the four boundaries in addition to the particulars available in the plaint.

C.M.P.No.33/2007: was also filed by the 1st respondent/appellant seeking to add the schedule of property as given therein in C.M.P.No.30/2007.

4. Brief facts of the case of the 1st respondent/petitioner/appellant before the lower court are as follows:

4(a). The 1st respondent states that the property described in the schedule originally belonged to Kuppaswami Naicker his grand father. He had two sons Govidasami and Chockalinga. In a partition entered between Govindasami and Chockalinga the suit property was allotted to the share of Chockalinga. The said deed was registered as document No.2174 of 1959 S.R.O. West Madras. The suit property was constructed on the leasehold land belonging to Shri Sundararaja Perumal Koil, with the funds of joint family consisted by Chockalinga and his four sons Govidasami, Venu, Srinivasan and one Krishnan who is the father of the petitioner herein. The said Chockalinga died in the year 1964 and his four sons continued to be the members of a Joint Hindu Undivided family.

4(b) The 1st respondent states that the property was maintained by the family and taxes were paid by them and receipts were taken in the name of Venu, paternal uncle of the 1st respondent as he was living there. After the death of all the four brothers the 1st respondent being the only surviving male issue in the entire family became absolutely entitled to the suit property. Since the 1st respondent became entitled to the suit property as the last male surviving co-parcener, he filed O.S.No.9994 of 1992 on the file of (VII Assistant City Civil Court, Madras) for declaration that he is solely entitled to the suit property and also for possession and for a permanent injunction. In the said suit one Vasantha was arrayed as defendant who is the daughter of Kamala who was attending the house hold duties of Venu. Both are not related to the family and taking advantage of the situation viz. the sickly nature of Venu and the absence of any lady member in the house in the guise of helping Venu were staying in the house. The 1st defendant and her mother were staying in the house and the petitioner allowed them to vacate after sometime in turn they accepted to do so. Even though she was served with summons she engaged a counsel and written statement was not filed even after granting time and she was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 17.09.1993 and no appeal nor any petition was filed to set aside exparte decree and the decree has become final.

4(c) In pursuant to the document which they coerced out of my paternal uncle, in turn they executed a mortgage in favour of one Stephen who brought the property to auction sale and the petitioner filed O.S.No.7920 of 1993 which was dismissed by the trial court and an appeal was filed before this court. The suit was dismissed on the basis of Ex.C1 extract from the permanent land register without looking into the boundaries mentioned in the partition deed and the sale deed and the mortgage deed and menti