Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications affirmed as documents sought were irrelevant and delay in proceedings does not justify reopening closed evidence.

ORDER :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. These three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the Orders passed in I.A. No.7 of 2022, I.A. No.9 of 2022 and I.A. No.8 of 2022 in O.S. No.513 of 1998 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Perambalur, as tabulated below:

2. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S. No.513 of 1998 on the file of 'the Principal District Munsif Court, Perambalur' ['Trial Court' for convenience]. The petitioners in the Interlocutory Applications who are the plaintiffs in the Suit have preferred these Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the dismissal Orders passed in the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

4. The plaintiffs filed the Original Suit seeking partition and division of Suit Property. Originally, the first plaintiff - Vadivel alone filed the Suit and the second plaintiff - Chidambaram was arrayed as fourth defendant. Thereafter, the fourth defendant was transposed as second plaintiff. The plaintiffs are the sons and the defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of the first defendant - Kanagaraj.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Suit Properties are ancestral properties and the marriage of defendants 2 and 3 held after Tamil Nadu Act No.1 of 1990 and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of the same. Hence, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 are co-parceners each entitled to 1/5 share in the Suit Properties. Accordingly, the plaintiffs laid a Suit for partition and costs.

6. The defendants 1 to 3 did not enter appearance and therefore they were set ex-parte before the Trial Court. The fourth defendant - Amirtham and sixth defendant - Palaniyandi and seventh defendant - Rajavel, and defendants 8 to 11 who are none other than the sons and daughters of fourth defendant, are contesting the Suit.

7. The case of the fourth defendant is that the Suit Properties are ancestral properties of the first defendant and his father - Singaram. Singaram passed away in the year 1993. During lifetime, Singaram and the first defendant executed Sale Deeds dated May 8, 1976 and April 28, 1979 in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Suit Properties in favour of the fourth defendant. On and after the purchase, the fourth defendant - Amirtham was in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. During the pendency of the Suit, she executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the defendants 8 to 11 who are her sons and daughters. Hence, the Suit is clearly barred by limitation. It is a colluded Suit with a view to defeat and defraud the rights of the fourth defendant - Amirtham.

7.1. Defendants 8 to 11 adopted the written statement filed by the fourth defendant.

8. The sixth defendant - Palaniyandi filed written statement stating that the first defendant and his father Singaram executed a Sale Deed on May 4, 1982 in his favour. The sixth defendant executed a Power of Attorney Deed dated April 3, 2008 appointing one Srinivasan as his power agent. Pursuant to the Power of Attorney Deed, the power agent - Srinivasan executed a Sale Deed in favour of the seventh defendant. The plaintiffs and the de