The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of evidence under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the court's interpretation of the provisions of Section 17 to Section 31 and Section 23 of the Act.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.01.2014 made in I.A. No. 24 of 2012 in O.S. No. 18 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankari, wherein the application filed under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, for receiving the C.D. discussion as evidence to play the same before the open Court to confront DW2 with his own admission made in the televised discussion held on 21.12.2011 to establish his case, came to be dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

3. The petitioner herein as plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari for the following reliefs:

(a) To divide the suit properties into three equal shares and allote one such share to the Plaintiff by putting him in separate possession by appointment of Commission making provisions for passing final decree, taking into consideration the good and bad nature of soil and situation.

(b) To restrain the 2nd defendant from any way in any manner alienating specific portions of suit properties in favour of third parties by way of permanent injunction till final decree is passed.

(c) To award costs of the suit to the Plaintiff; and

(d) To grant other relief or reliefs as the Court thinks fit under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

4. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the first defendant had two wives. The second defendant is the son born through his first wife Kalavathi. The said Kalavathi died 35 years ago leaving behind her husband, the first defendant and Son, the second defendant. After the death of Kalavathi, the first defendant married one Annapoorani as his second wife and the petitioner/plaintiff was born through the second wife Annapoorani. So, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 constitute a joint Hindu family. The suit scheduled properties are ancestral properties of Thandavaraya Padayachi who is the father of the first defendant and grandfather of the plaintiff and the second defendant. So, the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to share in the suit properties.

5. While so, the said Thandavaraya Padayachi died at the age of 87. During his life time, Thandavaraya Padayachi had executed a will dated 24.01.1982 in favour of the first defendant plaintiff, second defendant stating that they are entitled to equal share in the suit properties. Hence, the petitioner herein as plaintiff has filed the suit for the reliefs stated above.

6. In the said suit, the second defendant filed written statement and contested the same, stating that as per the Will dated 24.01.1982, the total extent of the property available is only 9.91 acres, but the petitioner/plaintiff is seeking partition of 12.38 acres of land as per the plaint schedule property. It was further stated therein that 2.47 acres of the suit property is the self acquired property of one Angayammal, who is the wife of the Thandavaraya Padayachi and mother of the first defendant and grant mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant. The said Angayammal had executed a registered a Will dated 15.06.1992 in favour of the second respondent/second defendant regarding her 2.47 acres of self acquired properties. She died on 11.06.1995. So, only the second respondent/second defendant has got the legacy to get the 2.47 acres of self acquired property of Angayammal. The second respondent/second defendant also got patta in respect of the said 2.47 acres and later, he mortgaged the property in favour of the third respondent/third defendant. It was further stated that they constituted a joint family along with their grandfather and so, the will executed by Thandavaraya Padayachi is valid only upto the share of the said Thandavaraya Padayachi in the joint family properties and the second respondent/second defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The petitioner/plaintiff filed reply statem