ORDER :

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. 

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.179 of 2013, dated 12.03.2025. The civil revision petitioner is the second defendant in the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank in the plaint.

3. O.S.No.179 of 2013 was presented by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:-

"A. A decree declaring that the settlement deed No.2831 of 2008 dated 25-9-2008 of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kollemcode in favour of the first defendant by Kamalamma is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

B. A decree declaring that the sale deed No. 1107 of 2011 dated 7-4-2011 of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kollemcode by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

C. A decree declaring the title of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property and recover possession of the same from the defendants and all claiming under them on removal of structures therein.

D. A decree to recover mesne profits at the rate of Rs.12.000/- per annum from the defendants and their assets from 10-5-2013 till the date of delivery of possession to the plaintiffs. "

4. For the purpose of this revision, I need not delve deep into the facts of the case. It is suffice to state that the mother of the first defendant, one Kamalamma, had settled the suit schedule property in favour of the first defendant. She claimed to be the wife of one Balakrishnan Nair and that the first defendant was the daughter of the said Balakrishnan Nair. According to the plaintiffs, this settlement deed is a fraudulent document. On the strength of the settlement deed, the first defendant executed a sale deed in respect of 7 cents in favour of the second defendant / civil revision petitioner on 07.04.2011. The plaintiffs were not aware of these facts since they were staying away from the suit schedule property. They came to know of this fact only in April 2013. By the time, they could move the Court, the defendants had trespassed into the property on 10.05.2013 and started putting up a construction. Immediately the plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kanyakumari District hoping that some action will be taken by the police authorities for the acts of land grabbing.

5. The plaintiffs further alleged that, on coming to know that a complaint has been lodged to the police, the first defendant presented two suits in quick succession in O.S.No.59 of 2013, on the file of the Subordinate Court at Kuzhithurai and O.S.No.209 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Kuzhithurai for the relief of injunction.

6. Much after the suits had been presented, the police registered FIR in Crime No.64 of 2013 on 24.07.2013 under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sent the FIR to the file of the Court of Special Magistrate (Land Grabbing) at Tirunelveli.

7. As the defendants had taken forcible possession of the property and had put up a construction, the plaintiffs came forth with the suit in O.S.No.179 of 2013 for the aforesaid reliefs.

8. Summons were served on the defendants. The second defendant filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. She took a plea that the first defendant's mother had a right to settle the property in the name of the first defendant and since the first defendant had become the owner of the property, she was entitled to alienate the property in favour of the second defendant. Insofar as the criminal proceedings are concerned, she pointed out that the matter, on the date of filing of written statement, was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No.3253 of 2014. Despite having taken all these pleas on the merits, the second defendant failed to plead on the aspect of court fees at all. The suit was languishing for more than eight years.

9. Taking the permission of the Co