Under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C., a subsequent purchaser can raise the defense available to the original defendant and adding a new ground of defense or altering a defense is permissible.

1. This civil revision petition has been filed as against the fair and final order dated 12.4.2011 made in I.A.No.327 of 2011 in O.S.No.43 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai, Erode District, whereby the application filed by the respondent herein seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement, was allowed.

2. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein and the second defendant is the respondent.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this civil revision petition, are as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode as against her deceased brother's wife viz., A.Saraswathi for dividing the suit property into 9 equal shares by mets and bounds and allot 7 such shares contiguously to her and put her in separate possession. Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai and renumbered as O.S.No.43 of 2009. During the pendency of the said suit, the subsequent purchasers viz., defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded as per order dated 22.7.2009 made in I.A.No.44 of 2008.

(b) It is the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the suit property originally belonged to one Appachi Gounder and his wife Valliammal. After their demise, their son Marappa Gounder @ Ponna Gounder succeeded the suit property. The said Marappa Gounder @ Ponna Gounder had died leaving behind his son Appusamy and daughter P.Saraswathi, the plaintiff herein. After the demise of the said Marappa Gounder @ Ponna Gounder, his son Appusamy and the plaintiff were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, the plaintiff's brother Appusamy had died on 8.2.2004 leaving behind his wife, the first defendant viz., A.Saraswathi. The plaintiff had filed the present suit as against her deceased brother's wife stating that she is entitled to 7/9th share in the suit property and the first defendant in the suit, viz., her deceased brother's wife is entitled to only 2/9th share over the suit property.

(c) The first defendant has filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint.

(d) Defendants 2 and 3, the subsequent purchasers of the property from the first defendant, have also filed a written statement stating that Appusamy, the husband of the first defendant alone was in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property till his death. After his death, his wife, the first defendant in the suit alone was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She had entered into a sale agreement dated 24.1.2005 with three persons viz., K.Ramasamy, A.Thangarasu and Gopal. Subsequently, since the first defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the said K.Ramasamy, A.Thangarasu and Gopal filed a suit as against the first defendant in O.S.No.31 of 2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Erode, for specific performance and for other reliefs. The said suit was decreed in their favour on 28.8.2007. On the strength of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.31 of 2007, the first defendant along with the above said three persons executed two sale deeds one in favour of second defendant and another in favour of third defendant on 27.3.2008 with regard to her half share. Defendants 2 and 3 have purchased the said property for a valuable consideration. From the date of purchase, defendants 2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment over the first defendant's half share in the suit property. Thus, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 sought for the dismissal of the suit.

(e) During the pendency of the trial, since the first defendant was set exparte, the second defendant has filed an application seeking permission to file additional written statement stating that he came to know that the first defendant begot a male child on 29.1.2