O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated

10.08.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in I.A.No.318 of 2020 in O.S.No.262 of 2019.

2. The first respondent / plaintiff has filed O.S.No.262 of

2019 against the petitioner and 3 others, seeking partition of the suit property into 3 equal shares based on the Will dated 19.01.1980 and one share to the plaintiff; to grant permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from permanently alienating or encumbering the suit property. After entering appearance, the petitioner, who is the 4th defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.318 of 2020 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of this petition, is that, the suit was filed by the first respondent, claiming partition of the suit property on the basis of the Will dated 19.01.1980. The first respondent claims that the suit property belongs to the father of Ramasamy, who purchased it on 24.08.1960. It is also alleged that his brother-in-law Palanisamy, who is the father of the petitioner fraudulently claim right in the suit property on the basis of the Certificate of the year 1962, created revenue records in his name, included the property in the Partition Deed dated 08.09.1978 with his son Balan and was in illegal possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, the suit was filed.

4. It is seen from the plaint averments that, there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is barred by limitation. It is claimed that the suit property was included in the Partition Deed, between Palanisamy and his son Balan without any semblance of right. According to the case of the first respondent, petitioner's possession is illegal possession. If this is true, the suit filed for partition, cannot be maintained in law. The first respondent should have filed the suit for recovery of possession. When admittedly, the petitioner and her family members are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from 1973 and when the first respondent, is not in the possession of the property, the suit filed now, is barred by limitation and also barred for not properly valuing the suit under Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Therefore, this petition.

5. This petition was opposed by the first respondent and also by other respondents alleging that, the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.PC., is not maintainable. There is sufficient cause of action for filing the suit and it is clearly explained in the plaint. The suit was filed within time. The suit was valued in line with the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

6. It is the contention of the first respondent that, Palanisamy, father of the petitioner, taking advantage of the close relationship with Ramasamy and also the fact that he was working as the Village Administrative Officer, tempered with the revenue records. Without the knowledge of Ramasamy, effected change in the revenue records, as if, he is the owner of the suit property. He is sister's husband of Ramasamy. Therefore, Ramasamy believed him and signed as an attestor in the Partition Deed of the year 1978. Signing in the Partition Deed as an attestor does not mean that he has accepted the contents of the Partition Deed. Without informing the contents of the Partition Deed Ramasamy was made to believe that, he was signing in the partition of properties of Palanisamy and therefore, he signed as an attestor.

7. The respondents are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property and their possession is that of constructive possession. They have faith on the petitioner and Palanisamy that, they would not do anything against the respondents interest. Only now, they started investigation and found that, the revenue records had been changed in the name of Palanisamy. They sent several complaints to the concerned authorities. Finding that, there