This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal orders of the learned District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate of Uthangarai dated 29.10.2012 in I.A.No.431 of 2011 in O.S.No.373 of 1995.

2. The petitioner is the third defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.373 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai. Pending Civil Revision Petition, the sole petitioner died and petitioners 2 to 6 were brought on record as legalheirs of the sole petitioner. The first respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.173 of 1975 before District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri against her father Krishnasami Naidu, second respondent who is her sister, the first petitioner who is her brother and one G.Subramani for partition claiming 1/4th share in the suit property. An exparte preliminary decree was passed on 13.06.1975. The first defendant, father of the respondents and petitioner died on 22.07.1982 and hence the petitioner and respondents are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property as against 1/4th share. In the meantime, the suit was transferred to District Munsif Court, Uthangarai and renumbered as O.S.No.373 of 1995. The first respondent filed I.A.No.344 of 1995 in O.S.No.373 of 1995 for passing of final decree for partition by appointment of a commissioner to divide the properties as directed by the preliminary decree in the suit.

2(a) The second respondent filed counter and contended that she has no objection for share being allotted as per the preliminary decree. The petitioner filed counter and contended that the application is barred by limitation as the same was filed after a period of 19 years of passing of preliminary decree and application for final decree ought to have been filed within a period of 12 years. The said application was dismissed on 10.11.1998. Thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A.No.431 of 2011 in O.S.No.373 of 1995 for passing of final decree by fixing 1/3rd share of the first respondent in the suit property by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and to file a report with plan. The first petitioner has stated that particulars given about the suit properties are not correct and he has obtained title by adverse possession. The first petitioner sold the first item of the property to one Kasi Naidu and his wife who in turn sold the same to one Lokammal. After such sale, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The first petitioner, by registered partition deed dated 08.09.2010 partitioned the property among his wife and sons, the petitioners 2 to 6 herein. As per the partition, the first petitioner and his wife did not retain any portion in the item No.1 & 2 of the suit property. The purchasers and petitioners 2 to 6 have obtained title by adverse possession. The sons and daughters of the first petitioner and Logakammal are necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the application.

3. The learned Judge rejected the contention of the first petitioner and allowed the application in I.A.No.431 of 2011 in O.S.No.373 of 1995 appointing Mr.S.Murthi, Advocate as Commissioner to measure the property with the help of surveyor and divide the same into three equal shares and file a report and plan by allotting 1/3rd share to each of the parties.

4. Against the said order dated 29.10.2012 in I.A.No.431 of 2011 in O.S.No.373 of 1995, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments in the counter filed in the present application and the contentions raised in the grounds of revision and further submitted that the court below failed to see that the petition filed by the first respondent in I.A.No.344 of 1995 for passing of final decree by giving the description of the properties was dismissed on 10.11.1998 holding that the first respondent did not give the proper description and that after 13 years of