The Court emphasized the importance of producing sufficient evidence when seeking to include properties in a suit schedule and highlighted the necessity of impleading all necessary parties in a partition suit.

1. C.M.A.No.2268 of 2013 and C.R.P (NPD) No.3120 of 2013 arise out of the same issue. Hence, both the cases are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. The appellants in C.M.A.No.2268 of 2013 and the petitioners in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3120 of 2013 are one and the same.

3. The appellants in C.M.A.No.2268 of 2013 viz., Velusamy, Parameswari and Chitradevi, who are the revision petitioners in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3120 of 2013 are the grand son and grand daughters of the deceased Valliammal, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 of 1997 and they are also the son and daughters of the deceased Mariammal, who was the first defendant in the said suit on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. The respondents in C.M.A.No.2268 of 2013 as well as C.R.P.(NPD) No.3120 of 2013 viz., P.C. Pangajam, M. Sri Ganesh, M. Sri Sakthivel and M. Sri Saravanan are defendants 2 to 5 in the said suit. They are the legal heirs of one P.C. Mariappan, who was the pre-deceased son of the plaintiff Valliammal.

4. The respondents in the appeal as well as revision petition, filed A.S.No.12 of 2012 before the III Additional District Court, Erode, as against the preliminary decree dated 7.4.2011 passed in I.A.No.389 of 2010 in O.S.No.65 of 1997.

5. Pending appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2012, the respondents have taken out an application in I.A.No.662 of 2012 to include certain left out properties in the suit for partition filed in O.S.No.65 of 1997.

6. The lower appellate Court, by order dated 1.10.2012, has allowed the said application in I.A.No.662 of 2012 filed by the respondents herein to include the left out properties in the suit for partition. Further, the lower appellate Court, has allowed the appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2012 by setting aside the preliminary decree passed in I.A.No.389 of 2010 in O.S.No.65 of 1997 by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to include the left out properties in the plaint filed in O.S.No.65 of 1997 and pass a fresh preliminary decree by affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence.

7. Challenging the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court by setting aside the preliminary decree dated 10.7.2002, C.M.A.No.2268 of 2013 has been filed. Aggrieved over the order passed in I.A.No.662 of 2012 in allowing the application filed by the respondents to include the left out properties in the suit schedule, C.R.P (NPD) No.3120 of 2013 has been filed.

8. Now, the brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in C.M.A.No.2268 of 2013 and C.R.P.(NPD) No.3120 of 2013, are as follows:-

(a) Before narrating the facts of the case, for easy understanding, the genealogy of the parties is given below:-

Chinnagounder

(died on 18.03.1991)

Valliammal, Mariammal, Mariappan,

W/o.Chinnagounder D/o.Chinnagounder S/o.Chinnagounder

(died on 04.03.2006) (died on 23.03.2003) (died on 02.08.1995)

- - - - - - - - - - - Pankajam,

W/o. Mariappan

Mariammal – Son 1, Daughters 2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sons of Mariappan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A. Velusamy Parameswari Chithradevi Sri Ganesh Sri Sakthivel Sri-

Saravanan

(b) Originally, the suit in O.S.No.65 of 1997 has been filed by the above said Valliammal, wife of Chinnu @ Chinnagounder @ Muthugounder as against defendants 1 to 5 for partition of certain properties described in schedule 'A' to 'F' of the plaint. In the said suit, the daughter of said Valliammal viz., Mariammal was shown as first defendant. Since the son of Valliammal viz., P.C. Mariappan, pre-deceased her on 2.8.1995, his wife and sons were shown as defendants 2 to 5.

(c) In the said suit, it has been stated by the said Valliammal that Item No.1 of suit 'A' schedule property originally belonged to the father and mother of her husband Chinnu @ Chinnagounder @ Muthugounder. Her husband obtained the said property in a family partition. Item No.2 of suit 'A' schedule property was purchased by the husband of Valliammal separately out of his own income.