The main legal point established in the judgment is that while inconsistent pleas can be made in a written statement, introducing mutually destructive or new cases in an additional written statement is not permitted.

Heard both sides

2. Thedefendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.11 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, are the revision petitioners herein.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the above suit O.S.No.11 of 2005 for partition of their ½ share in the suit Items 1 to 4 and for declaration of title in respect of Item No.5 stating that it also belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs are entitled to half share together in Item No.5 of the suit property.

.4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff is the widow of Dr.Selvaraj and the 2nd plaintiff is her son and the defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Dr.Selvaraj through his first wife. The properties in Item Nos.1 and 2 were purchased in the names of the defendants 1 and 2 by Late Dr.Selvaraj and the 1st plaintiff and it was in the control and possession of the 1st plaintiff and her husband and the 3rd item was purchased by Dr.Selvaraj in his name and the 5th item was purchased by the 4th defendant in his own name, though the consideration for the same was also provided by Dr.Selvaraj and 1st plaintiff and without the knowledge of Dr.Selvaraj, the 4th defendant purchased the 5th item of property in his own name and the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 all are entitled to ½ share in that property also. It is further stated in the plaint that the 3rd item of the suit property is worth more than Rs.50,00,000/- and the 4th defendant namely, the 4th respondent herein, in collusion with the 5th respondent obtained a power from the revision petitioners 1 and 2 in the name of the 4th respondent and entered into a sale transaction with the 5th respondent as if the property was sold by the 4th respondent as a power agent of the revision petitioners 1 and 2 to the 5th respondent and the sale is not a valid sale and that will not affect the right of the respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs claiming share in the suit property also. The defendants 1 and 2 viz., the revision petitioners herein filed a statement denying the status of the first respondent/first plaintiff as the 2nd wife of Dr.Selvaraj and the further allegations that the 2nd plaintiff was born to the first plaintiff through Dr.Selvaraj.

5. It is further stated that the revisions petitioners alone are the legal heirs of Dr.Selvaraj and the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Dr.Selvaraj and the Item Nos.1 and 2 are the properties belong to the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs have no right over the same. The 3rd item was the property of Dr.Selvaraj and the 3rd item was sold by the revision petitioners through their power Agent to the 5th respondent under a registered sale deed, dated 30.06.2004 for valuable consideration and the sale deed is a valid sale deed and the plaintiffs, who have no right over the property cannot question that sale transaction.

6. In the written statement, the defendants 1 and 2 vz., revision petitioners accepted the sale of 3rd item of property by their power agent, the 4th respondent herein, in favour of the 5th respondent. In respect of other two items of properties viz., 4th and 5th items, the revision petitioners contended that they are the properties belonging to Dr.Selvaraj and as his children, they alone are entitled to claim that property and the respondents 1 and 2 viz., the plaintiffs cannot claim right in that property. In respect of Item No.5, the revision petitioners denied the allegations of the plaintiffs that the 4th respondent practised fraud and obtained the sale deed in his favour and contended that the 5th item of the property belongs to the 4th respondent and it was not the property of Dr.Selvaraj.

.7. After the trial has commenced and after the examination of the plaintiffs witnesses and after filing of proof affidavit by the first defendant, the defendants 1 and 2 filed application in I.A.No.91 of 2005 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 seeking permission to file additional written statement and in the affidav