Amendments should not defeat accrued legal rights or introduce new causes of action.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 24.07.2013, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Theni, in I.A.No.354 of 2012 in O.S.No.150 of 2010.

2. Heard Mr.S.Sundaresan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Mr.Saravanakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

3. The petitioners herein are the defendants 1 to 6, whereas the first respondent is the plaintiff, the second respondent is the seventh defendant and the third respondent is the eighth defendant in the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2010, on the file of Sub-Court, Theni.

4. The first respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Court, Theni, to declare her title over the 'A' schedule property and for delivery of possession and she prayed for a direction to the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 herein/defendants to divide the 'B' schedule property into six equal shares and allot one share to her and put her in separate possession with liberty of filing final decree proceedings. She further prayed for a declaration that the sale deeds, dated 20.03.1997 and 24.03.1997, as null and void. She also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 herein/defendants from in anyway alienating or making encumbrance over the 'A' schedule property.

5. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, 'A' schedule property belonged to his father-Arumugam. By irrevocable settlement deed, dated 30.09.1960, registered as Document No.3048 of 1960, the first respondent's father settled the life interest on himself and his wife viz., Palaniammal, the mother of the first respondent. Till her death i.e., on 02.06.2006, the first respondent's mother was residing in 'A' schedule property and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After her mother's death, her father was in possession and enjoyment till his death, i.e., on 03.03.2010. After her father's death, when she tried to take possession of 'A' schedule property, she came to know of the partition effected among the respondents and her father on 28.02.1995 and also registered cancellation deed, dated 20.11.2000, cancelling the settlement deed, dated 30.09.1960. She came to know the sale effected by the fourth petitioner on 24.03.1997 and 20.03.1997 to the second respondent and the third respondent herein respectively. She is not a party to the partition deed and the cancellation deed. Therefore, the partition deed and the cancellation deed are not binding on her. The petitioners herein/defendants 1 to 6 did not derive valid title. The sale deeds executed by the fourth petitioner are void. She also stated that the 'B' and 'C' schedule properties were purchased out of the income from the 'A' schedule property. Based on these documents, she filed the above suit. According to her, the cause of action for the suit arose on 03.03.2010, when her father died and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation.

6. The petitioners/defendants 1 to 6 in their written statement denied all the allegations made in the plaint. They have stated that there was no joint family and the first respondent was never in joint family possession. The suit is barred by limitation and the Court fee paid is not correct. The first respondent's father divorced her mother and married the first petitioner and the petitioners 2 to 6 are the daughters of the said Arumugam and the first petitioner. It is not correct to state that the first respondent came to know of the partition deed and cancellation deed, cancelling the settlement deed, dated 30.09.1960 only after the death of her father. The first respondent and her mother issued notice to Arumugam, on 23.09.2002 and a reply was sent to the said notice on 27.09.2002 and 26.10.2002. The first respondent/plaintiff and her mother sent notices, dated 13.12.2002