This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants in the original suit challenging the order of the trial Court dismissing their application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement.

2. The sole respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The arguments advanced by Ms.C.R.Rukmani, learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mr.N.Nagusah, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. The certified copy of the impugned order and copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers were also perused.

3.P.V.Palani, the respondent herein filed O.S.No.370 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court, namely the Court of the District Munsif, Madurantakam, for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property and for consequential injunction against the revision petitioners herein/defendants not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. An extent of Hectares 0.03.0 comprised in S.No.146/4 and an extent of Hectares 0.02.0 comprised in S.No.146/5A1 at Melavalam Village, Maduranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District have been shown as Items 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule. It is in respect of the said properties, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and consequential injunction.

4. The respondent herein/plaintiff claims to have got title to the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 04.07.1979 executed by Lakshmipathy and his brother Sathiamoorthy in favour of the plaintiff's father who in turn had got the property as testamentory legal heir of Jegatheesa Mudaliar. It is also his contention that the said Jagatheesa Mudaliar got the suit properties under a registered Exchange Deed dated 27.03.1960 from one Kuppammal, who had got it under a registered settlement deed dated 11.09.1956 from the original owner Venu Mudaliar. It has also been contended by the respondent herein/plaintiff that though the vendor of his father intended to convey the entire properties comprised in S.No.146, by inadvertence, the suit properties were omitted to be included in the sale deed; that nevertheless, the father of the respondent herein took possession of the entire property including the suit properties; that by virtue of two settlement deeds dated 19.10.2007 and 18.11.2000 respectively, the first and second items of the suit properties came to be settled on him and that in any event, since the suit properties were enjoyed in succession by Kuppammal, Jegatheesa Mudaliar and Lakshmipathy, the father of the respondent/plaintiff and the respondent/plaintiff for more than 60 years, he had acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession.

5. The suit is contested by the revision petitioners/defendants based on the averments found in their written statement which was filed long back. In the said written statement, besides denying the plaint allegations one by one, the revision petitioners /defendants have contended that Item No.1 comprised in S.No.146/1 was not sold by Lakshmipathy and Sathiamurthy to Viswanatha Mudaliar, the father of the plaintiff; that at no point of time, either Lakshmipathy or Sathiamurthy or Viswanatha Mudhaliar possessed the suit first item; that the suit first item of the property comprised in S.No.146 of 2004 was sold orally by Kuppammal during the year 1959 to one Amaravathy Mudaliar, the father of the first petitioner/first defendant; that on the death of the said Amaravathy Mudaliar in the year 1974, the first petitioner/first defendant became the absolute owner of the said property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same; that in turn he executed a settlement under a registered document dated 21.11.2007 to the petitioner 2 & 3/ defendant 2 & 3 and the same was acted upon; that the revision petitioners/defendants do not claim any right in respect of the second Item of the suit properties, namely the property comprised in S.No.146 /5A1 a