O R D E R

This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore in I.A. No. 4 of 2023 in O.S. No.

313 of 2010 dated 04.09.2023.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the grand-daughter of one Chinnasamy. Chinnasamy obtained the suit scheduled mentioned property on 12.05.1970 by way of partition between himself and others. Even in the said document, the properties were described as joint family properties. Chinnasamy married one Sarojini and from the wedlock, two children were born. They were Inbavathy and Jayakumar. Jayakumar married one Radhamani and from that wedlock, the plaintiff was born on 26.05.1995.

3. Inbavathy married one Vivekanandan and from the wedlock, a boy name Deepak was born. Chinnasamy and Jayakumar, treating themselves as co-parceners, alienated the properties by way of sale deed and settlement deed in favour of Inbavathy. Inbavathy passed away on 27.01.2009. Her husband and son had predeceased her. On her death Chinnasamy's wife Sarojini treated herself as the sole legal heir of the deceased Inbavathy and alienated the property in favour of one Maragadam on 05.07.2011. Maragadam, in turn, alienated the property in favour of the civil revision petitioner on 26.12.2011.

Even prior to these alienations, the suit for partition had been presented even on 09.06.2010.

4. The plaintiff pleaded that, by virtue of being a co-parcener, she is entitled to a share in the joint family property that fell into the hands of Chinnasamy pursuant to the registered partition deed dated 12.05.1970. She would plead that her father Jayakumar had deserted her mother Radhamani and had taken to drinking and became an alcoholic. She would plead that her mother was not being maintained and as acts of alienation of the joint family properties against her interest had taken place, hence, after issuance of a notice, she presented the suit for partition.

5. Jayakumar, after having filed a written statement and an additional written statement, did not participate in the trial. He would plead that on 28.01.2001, the sale deed and settlement deed had been made by Chinnasamy in favour of Inbavathy and she had become the absolute owner of the property. In addition, he would state that on 29.03.2005, a settlement deed had been executed over his half share in the property in favour of Chinnasamy and, in turn, Chinnasamy had executed a settlement deed in favour of Inbavathy on 30.03.2005. He would state that the plea of the plaintiff does not deserve consideration and the suit is vexatious and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Pending the suit, an application was taken out by the plaintiff in I.A.

No. 2 of 2021 to implead the lis pendens purchaser namely the civil revision petitioner. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge and the plaint was amended impleading the civil revision petitioner as the 2nd defendant on 25.07.2022. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant took out an application for rejection of plaint in I.A. No. 4 of 2023. After receipt of a counter from the plaintiff, the learned Judge went on to dismiss the petition.

Hence, this revision.

7. Heard Mr. T.M.Naveen for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.

C.R.Prasannan for the 1st respondent.

8. Mr. T.M.Naveen would contend that the plaintiff had suppressed the sale deed that had been executed in favour of Inbavathy as well as the settlement deed that had been executed by her grandfather in favour of Chinnasamy, and the subsequent settlement deed by Chinnasamy in favour of Inbavathy and therefore, the suit must be dismissed for suppression of material facts. He would further plead that there is no cause of action for the suit as on the date of presentation of the plaint as the plaintiff had not pleaded that she has a share in the property. He would state that the suit has to be rejected for want of prayer of declaration that the sale deed and settlement deed executed as