M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The 3rd defendant in the suit in O.S. No.69 of 2009 is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A. No.119 of 2012 in O.S. No.69 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi, this civil revision petition has been filed.

2. The case of the petitioner/3rd defendant is that the suit in O.S. No.69 of 2009 has been filed before the learned Sub-Judge, Mannarguudi by the respondent/plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the suit property. This petitioners/defendants 3 and 4 are filed written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed his Proof Affidavit and examined himself as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. The suit properties were purchased by the petitioner/3rd defendant and they could not come under partition. The respondent/plaintiff filed nine documents with the plaint. Out of which seven documents were marked, during the chief examination of plaintiff. The remaining two documents are sale agreement dated 15.05.1996 and 02.03.1998, since the counsel for the petitioners/3rd defendant and 4th defendant objected to mark the above two documents that they were not registered and they are not the title deed, and they are not the document of title and no title right effected with regard to the properties mentioned in those documents. Without examining the parties of the documents namely Shanmugam and Pachamuthu, the above documents could not be marked through the plaintiff, who is the third person to the document. Since the above documents are not related to this partition suit and the documents are created one it is not acceptable as per the provisions of law and hence the petitioners/3rd and 4th defendants prayed the Court to reject the above documents and therefore, they filed the documents in I.A. No.119 of 2012 in O.S. No.69 of 2009.

3. On receipt of the notice in the I.A., the counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and denied the allegations set out in the affidavit.

4. The 1st respondent/plaintiff states that the documents 1 to 9 filed with plaint are not the new documents and they are in the custody of this respondent. Since the suit properties were purchased by the 1st respondent/plaintiff from the income derived out of his abroad employment, the documents dated 15.05.1996 and 02.03.1998 are joint family properties and comes under partition.

5. Therefore, after trial of the suit, the Title should be proved and not at the stage of marking the documents as exhibits. Since, the defendants were not affected and their case is not affected by marking the above documents, the properties which are in the possession, the judgment only bind over the co-partners and hence the properties has not purchased by registered deed also come under partition. There is no stay for it. Order 13, Rule 3, does not to defend the suit. The 3rd defendant/petitioner did not object the documents in his written statement. Since the petitioner did not object the documents in his written statement, he could not object at the stage of examination of witnesses. Therefore, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering both side arguments, the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi, by order dated 13.03.2013, dismissed the petition by stating that the documents received are subject to the proof and relevancy. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

7. I have heard Mrs. R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. P.T. Ramadevi, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused all the materials available on record.

8. It is admitted fact that the suit filed for partition by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and proof affidavit of plaintiff filed and examined as PW1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the petitioner/3rd defendant several judgments were produced:

(1) The Special Tahsildar