The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the order and decreetal order dated 30.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.8 of 2009 in O.S.No.12 of 2007 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam.
2. The revision petitioners, the Plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.12 of 2007 for partition. The defendants, the respondents filed I.A.No.8 of 2009 to include a particular property situated at Thiruvarur stating that it is also to be included as one of the properties for partition stating that it is also a joint family property. Such application was resisted by the revision petitioners, the plaintiffs stating that it is self acquired property of their mother. The specific case of the respondents/defendants is that the property which is sought to be included in the suit for partition is a joint family property in the name of the mother and they relied upon the decision reported 1993(2) MLJ 676. In the counter to the I.A.No.8 of 2009, the revision petitioners, the plaintiffs stated that it is the separate property of their mother.
3. The court below came to the conclusion that the rival claims with regard to the nature of the property, right, title and interest cannot be decided in the Interlocutory Application and that the said issue can be decided only after full-fledged trial. The court below held that the controversy can be resolved by letting evidence oral and documentary at the time of trial. Consequently, the I.A.No.8 of 2009 was allowed. Challenging the same, the Civil Revision Petition is filed.
4. The ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the property is absolute property of the mother of the plaintiffs' family bought in their mother's name in the year 1955. It is stated that the suit is between the plaintiffs and the defendants in respect of other joint family property. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the heirs of the two deceased brothers and the suit is for partition of the joint family property. In this factual back ground, the trial court was justified in allowing the I.A.No.8 of 2009 filed by the respondents/defendants.
5. Admittedly, according to the revision petitioners, the late mother, who was said to be in exclusive possession of the property, is no more. The parties claim that they are a joint family and hence the suit for partition. In this factual background, the issue relating to the claim of the Civil Revision Petitioners, the plaintiffs that the property sought to be included in the partition suit is a separate property of their deceased mother is a matter for trial by letting oral and documentary evidence. As has been rightly held by the court below, it cannot be decided in the Interlocutory Application stage. This court finds no just reason to interfere with the order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2009 by the court below.
6. Finding no merits, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is closed.
7. Counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs seeks for early disposal of the suit. He further states that written statement has been filed and issues have been framed. In such an event, there can be no impediment to dispose off the suit expeditiously. The court below is, therefore, directed to dispose off the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ts To The District Judge, Nagapattinam