ORDER :

These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the fair and decretal order, dated 06.11.2014 passed in I.A Nos.457 and 624 of 2012 in O.S No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The first respondent herein originally filed the suit in O.S No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli against the petitioners 1 to 4 herein and the respondents 2 to 5 for partition and separate possession of 2/16th shares of the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits. Pending suit, the petitioners 1 to 4 herein filed two applications namely I.A No.457 of 2012 for impleading the respondents 6 and 7 and I.A.No.624 of 2012 for amendment to include one more schedule of property. The trial court dismissed both the applications, on 06.11.2014. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this court with these civil revision petitions.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. The main contention raised on the side of the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 is that the 1st respondent/plaintiff sold one property to the respondents 6 and 7 herein and the sale property also belongs to the revision petitioners and the oral partition alleged to have executed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff is denied by the revision petitioners and hence, it is necessary to include the above properties for partition and further, the amendment sought for by the petitioners will not change the cause of action or alter the character of the suit and prays that the amendment petition to implead the subsequent purchasers of the above property from the 1st respondent/plaintiff, are necessary parties for proper adjudication and hence, prays that the Civil Revision Petitions have to be allowed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relied upon the decisions reported in 2012(1) CTC 159 (Solavaiammal Vs. Ezhumalai Gounder).

5. On the side of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, it is argued that the alleged property was sold by the 1st respondent/plaintiff to the respondents 6 to 7 herein with the consent of all the co-owners and hence, it is not necessary to include the above property and the subsequent purchasers in the above suit and prays that the Civil Revision Petitions are to be dismissed.

6. In this case, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition as against the defendants. The main contention of the revision petitioners is that the 1st respondent/plaintiff sold one item of the joint family property to the respondents 6 and 7 herein and hence, it is necessary to include the above item of property, which was sold to the proposed respondents 6 and 7 and further, the subsequent purchasers are necessary parties for proper adjudication. The 1st respondent/plaintiff stated that in an oral partition, one property was allotted to her and hence, she sold the above property to the proposed respondents 6 and 7. But the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff contended that with the consent of the co-owners, one property was sold to the proposed respondents 6 and 7. Hence, it reveals that one of the family property was sold. To prove that with the consent of all the co-owners, the property was sold to the proposed respondents 6 and 7, no document was filed. Only at the time of the trial, it is possible to decide that whether the 1st respondent/plaintiff has right to dispose the property by way of examining the witnesses and production of the documents. Further, in the judgment reported in (2006)3 Supreme 507 (Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K.Modi and others), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

“13. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the a