ORDER

This revision is filed by the petitioner/first defendant seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 25.07.2017 in I.A.No.439 of 2017 in O.S.No.776 of 2017, by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 776 of

2017. The respondents 1 to 3 in this revision are the plaintiffs in the said suit and the respondents 4 to 7 herein are the defendants 3 to 6.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein/plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No. 776 of 2007 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, for partition and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the first plaintiff V. Rajkumar died and therefore, his legal heirs were impleaded as per the order dated 07.09.2016 in I.A. No. 599 of 2016.

4. The revision petitioner/first defendant had contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants 2 to 4 in the suit have also filed their written statement. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/first defendant herein has filed I.A. No. 439 of 2017 seeking to transpose himself as the 5th plaintiff in the suit proceedings. The trial Court refused to transpose the petitioner/first defendant as fifth plaintiff in the suit and dismissed the application by order dated 25.07.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner herein.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant submitted that the revision petitioner/first defendant, the second defendant and the deceased first plaintiff V. Rajkumar are the sons born to Venkatasamy Naidu and Govindammal. According to the learned counsel, Venkatasamy Naidu is the owner of the properties indicated in Schedule A to G and also having half share in the H Schedule property. While so, on 27.11.1994, Venkatasamy Naidu died leaving behind his wife Govindammal as well as his three sons namely revision petitioner/first defendant, the second defendant and the deceased first plaintiff V. Rajkumar. Subsequently, on 17.11.2005, Kamalammal also died leaving behind the revision petitioner/first defendant, the second defendant and the deceased first plaintiff V. Rajkumar to succeed to her estate. The learned counsel further submitted that the second defendant in the suit namely V. Radhakrishnan bequeathed 1/3 share in the suit properties to his wife namely R. Vimala (third defendant). The fourth defendant is the son of defendants 2 and 3. The fourth defendant is also the grand son of Late. Kamalammal, mother of the petitioner/first defendant. According to the learned counsel, soon after the death of Kamalammal, the fourth defendant namely Santhosh has filed O.S. No. 479 of 2006 against the petitioner/first defendant herein and others for partition of the properties mentioned therein on the strength of a settlement deed dated 24.10.2005 said to have been executed by Late. Kamalammal. In the said suit in O.S. No. 479 of 2006, the fourth defendant also claimed that on the same day namely 24.10.2005, Kamalammal also executed a Will in his favour and filed the suit. In the suit in O.S. No. 479 of 2006, the revision petitioner/first defendant herein has filed his written statement questioning the genuineness and validity of the settlement deed as well as Will, both dated

24.10.2005. Similarly, the defendants in O.S.No. 479 of 2006 have also filed their written statement and issues have been framed in the said suit in O.S. No. 479 of 2006 as to whether the settlement deed dated 24.10.2005 and Will dated 24.10.2005 are genuine.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant further stated that the properties covered in O.S. No. 479 of 2006 as well as the instant suit in O.S. No. 776 of 2007 are one and the same. In the suit in O.S. No. 479 of 2006, during cross-examination, the fourth plaintiff admitted that the settlement deed dated 24.10.2005 and the Will dated 24.10.2005 are genuine. According to