JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Final order dated 16.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.1221 of 2016 in O.S.No.194 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Attur.)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Fair and final order dated 16.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.1221 of 2016 in O.S.No.194 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Attur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The petitioners herein are the Defendants 4 and 5 in the suit in O.S.No.194 of 2004 filed by the plaintiffs claiming the relief of partition and separate possession stating that entire properties are belong to Elayappa Gounder and as his legal heirs, they are claiming right over the properties. The defendants 3 and 4 claiming right over the suit properties that they have purchased 28 cents with ½ right in the year of 1962 including the well, thereby, they denied the plaintiffs- right. The issues were framed. During the evidence, the defendants 4 and 5 filed an application in I.A.No.1221 of 2016 seeking to condone the delay in filing the additional written statement and also permit them to file additional written statement with regard to their claim over the properties on adverse possession, that application was objected by the plaintiffs. But, the trial court, on considering the submissions on either side, dismissed the application as it was belatedly filed. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.  4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the authority reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 2143 in the case of Thiyagarajan Vs. Manivannan, wherein this Court held that as per the preposition laid down, in the above case, the trial court must be liberal to receive the additional written statement to prove their defence before the trial court.

5. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that nearly about 23 years later, they have filed the application to receive additional written statement by taking another plea of adverse possession in respect of suit properties, besides, at the time of adducing evidence on the side of defendants. Hence, the trial court rightly rejected the application as it is highly belated one. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition as no merits.            6. Considering the submissions on either side, the suit was originally filed in the year of 1994 by the plaintiffs for the relief of partition and during the pendency of the suit, the case was transferred to the file of Sub-Court, Attur and renumbered as O.S.No.194 of 2004 from the file of learned District Court, Salem. At the time of adducing defendants- side evidence, the impugned Interlocutary Application was filed by the petitioners herein to receive additional written statement. In that statement, they took another claim over the property by way of adverse possession and also they purported title over the suit property. But, the trial court rejected the application as highly belated one. But, on considering the relief claimed in the suit, the plaintiffs claiming right in respect of suit properties as legal heirs of Elayappa Gounder and the defendants are also legal heirs of Elayappa Gounder. However, based on the sale deed, they claimed title over the property and to strengthen their defence, now they took a new plea of adverse possession. But, no issues were framed by the trial court. The learned counsel for plaintiffs pointed out that even at the time of filing written statement, they raised the plea of adverse possession. However, there was no issue framed by the trial court, but the law permits, the defendants can take any number of defence before conclusion of trial.

7. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to solve the issue fairly between the parties, the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants through additional written statement is p