PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records dated 13.02.2019 made in I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S.No.57 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, to set aside the same and allow this revision.

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S.No.57 of 2017, dated 13.02.2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, allowing the amendment petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

2.The revision petitioner is the second defendant and the second respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.57 of 2017 against the revision petitioner and the respondents 1 and 3 for partition and allotment of 2/3 shares in 'A' schedule properties and 1/4 share in 'B' schedule properties to the plaintiff.

3.It is evident from the records that all the three defendants have filed their written statement separately. Pending suit, the first defendant has filed the above application under Order 6 Rule 17 and 18 CPC., for amending the plaint. The learned trial Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order on 13.02.2019 permitting the proposed amendments. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd defendant has come forward with the present revision.

4.Admittedly, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and the third defendant is their sister and are the sons and daughter of Manivel Ambalam and Packiathammal, who are Indian Christians.

5.The case of the plaintiff is that item 1 to 13 of 'A' schedule properties were owned by their father Manivel Ambalam, that items 14 to 18 were owned by their mother Packiathammal and items 19 to 21 were owned by the parents jointly, that their parents have settled the entire 'A' schedule properties in favour of their three sons, the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and 2 vide settlement deed dated 27.09.1999 and as such, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to get 1/3 share in the 'A' schedule properties, that after death of their parents, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 have become owners of the said properties and are in possession and enjoyment of the same, that the suit 'B' schedule properties were owned by their father Mani Ambalam ancestrally, that after the death of their parents, the plaintiff and the defendants were entitled to get 1/4th share each and that since the defendants were not amendable for partition, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition.

6. It is also not in dispute that the first defendant's son had married the third defendant's daughter. Hence the first defendant and the third defendant have taken a defence in one voice that other family properties were not included in the suit, that the settlement deed alleged to have been executed by their parents dated 27.09.1999 is legally invalid and that the defendants 1 and 3 are entitled to get 1/4th share each, in all the properties.

7.The second defendant has filed his written statement in support of the case of the plaintiff.

8.The first defendant has filed the amendment petition by alleging that the property situated in Mani Nagar, Paramakudi Town was purchased from the joint family income in the name of the second defendant was not included in the suit, that the plaintiff and the second defendant colluded together and purposely omitted to include the said property and that therefore, the said