JUDGMENT :

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order in IA.No.228/2017 in OS.No.54/2015 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur dated 19.02.2018 thereby dismissing the petition filed for rejection of plaint.

[Virtual Mode]

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, in IA.No.228/2017 in OS.No.54/2015, dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in OS.No.54/2015.

3. It is necessary to narrate the factual background for proper appreciation of the respective contentions of the learned counsels.

4. The revision petitioner earlier as plaintiff, filed a suit in OS.No.233/2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, for partition of 1/4th share in all the suit properties. The suit properties consist of 11 items in Pudumavilangai Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District. Item No.7 of the suit properties is an extent of 0.44.0 Hectares [1.09 acres] in S.No.71 and the same is the subject matter of O.S.No.54/2015. The property has been described as a wet land and valued at Rs.21,800/-. Respondents 1 to 3 in the Civil Revision Petition are defendants 1, 2 and 4 in the suit in OS.No.233/2003. Defendants 1 and 2 in the previous suit who are respondents 1 and 2 herein contested the suit on the ground that the parties had already divided the suit properties as per the document styled as ''Koor Chit'' [dated 17.11.2000, marked as Ex.B1] and that therefore, the suit for partition is not maintainable. However, the Trial Court rejected the contention of defendants that there was a partition as per Koor Chit.

5. The suit in OS.No.233/2003 was decreed by granting a preliminary decree dated 13.11.2007. The revision petitioner herein was given 1/4th share in all the suit properties as per the preliminary decree. A direction was also given by the learned Judge for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for division of properties after proper valuation and other aspects. It is admitted that the revision petitioner filed an application in IA.No.182/2009 in OS.No.233/2003 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the property as per the preliminary decree.

6. It is stated by the revision petitioner that the said application was contested by the defendants herein. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed IA.No.157/2011 to pass a final decree in terms of the family arrangement dated 22.11.2009. It is admitted by the respondents herein that an exparte order in IA.No.157/2011 was passed on 10.06.2011. It is the contention of the respondents that the Lower Court had erroneously endorsed that ''no counter is filed'' and ordered the interlocutory application.

7. The 1st respondent herein thereafter filed IA.No.74/2013 in OS.No.233/2003 under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC to delete Item No.7 of the suit properties from the description of properties as per the preliminary decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, the applicant therein pleaded that there was a family arrangement in respect of the suit properties before the suit for partition and that the said document was not accepted as the document was insufficiently stamped and not registered. It is further stated that after the preliminary decree, there were negotiations among the parties and several mediations had taken place.

8. It is the specific case of the 1st respondent herein that the property described in Serial No.7 of the suit properties was agreed to be the property exclusively belonged to the 1st respondent herein. It is admitted that the said application in IA.No.74/2013 was contested by revision petitioner and dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.10.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent herein filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP.No.3201/2014 and