Judgment :- The defendants in O.S.No.553 of 1999 on the file of the II Addl. District Munsif, Coimbatore are the revision petitioners. 2. The respondents in this revision petition as plaintiffs have approached the trial Court, for the relief of partition of the suit property and for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 4, from alienating or encumbering the suit property. 3. The plaintiffs in the plaint have traced title to the suit property to the original owners viz., Narayanaswamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu, who are brothers. As per the averments in the plaint, the owners of the property settled the same in favour of Narayana Naidu and Rangaswamy Naidu. The plaintiffs, tracing the succession under them, have filed the suit, for partition of their 3/7th share in the suit property. 4. The defendants/revision petitioners have filed their written statement elsewhere in the year 2000, wherein as seen from the original written statement, they have admitted that the suit property originally belonged to Narayanasamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu. It is also the further admission of the defendants/revision petitioners that they had executed a registered settlement deed dated 20.7.1959 in favour of Narayana Naidu and Ayyammal, which is the source of the title for the plaintiffs, as well as for some of the defendants. The defendants admitting the original title in favour of Narayanaswamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu, further conceding that they had executed a settlement deed, would contend that Ayyammal was given only a limited life time of enjoyment towards her maintenance, which right had enlarged under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, in addition to some other defence also. 5. On the basis of the above averments, parties went on trial before the trial Court and the first plaintiff entered into the box on 7.7.2003 and it appears, his examination was over on 21.7.2003, as seen from the deposition copy of P.W.1 furnished by the revision petitioners. 5. On the basis of the above averments, parties went on trial before the trial Court and the first plaintiff entered into the box on 7.7.2003 and it appears, his examination was over on 21.7.2003, as seen from the deposition copy of P.W.1 furnished by the revision petitioners. At this stage, the contesting defendants 1, 2 & 4 have filed a petition under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C., seeking permission of the Court, to file an additional written statement, wherein they have questioned the capacity of the settlors, under the settlement deed dated 20.7.1959, on the ground, since the property originally belonged to two brothers as ancestral property or coparcenary property, as the case may be, they had no right to settle the property and in this view, the settlement deed is not legally valid. 6. The plaintiffs have opposed the claim of the defendants, to introduce such a plea by way of additional written statement, by filing a detailed counter, since the averments in the additional written statement are opposite to the original written statement, which aims to take away the right conferred upon the plaintiffs, on the basis of admission. 7. The learned trial Judge, upon consideration of the rival cases of the parties, felt that the contesting defendants should not be permitted to file additional written statement, since they sought to introduce a new case in the additional written statement, which is quite contrary to the original written statement, nullifying the admission already made in the written statement. In this view, he dismissed the application, which is under challenge in this revision. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. Govindarajan and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. N. Mani. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that by filing the additional written statement, the defendants are not taking inconsistent defence and therefore, on that ground, refusal to give permission for the reception of the additional written statement is erroneous, since Order VIII Rule 9 has not imposed any such bar. N. Mani. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that by filing the additional written statement, the defendants are not taking inconsistent defence and therefore, on that ground, refusal to give permission for the reception of the additional written statement is erroneous, since Order VIII Rule 9 has not imposed any such bar. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, that under the additional written statement, they want to explain the nature of property and thereby, they want to say the settlement deed is not legally valid, which will not amount to denial of the execution of the settlement deed, which they have admitted in the original written statement. According to the learned counsel, the trial Court, without properly appreciating the defence taken in the original written statement, and in the additional written statement, as well as failing to consider the oral evidence of P.W.1, erroneously dismissed the application, which should be set aside, thereby giving permission to the defendants, to file additional written statement. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents would contend, that by way of additional written statement, the defendants want to nullify the previous admission made in the original written statement, which is not permissible under law and in this view, the trial Court is right in refusing to give permission. In this context, we have to see the defence taken by the revision petitioners in the original written statement, as well as the case sought to be introduced, by way of additional written statement. 11. In the original written statement, it is said: "It is true that the suit property originally belonged to Narayanasamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu. They had executed a Regd Settlement Deed dated 20.7.1959 in favour of Narayana Naidu and Ayyammal. Under the said Settlement Deed Narayana Naidu and his wife Ayyammal were given the right to enjoy the property for the life time and the said right was given towards their maintenance. The property was also delivered only to Narayana Naidu and Ayyammal and they alone were in possession of the property." 12. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, the above said averments are clear admission regarding the execution of the settlement deed and its follow up action, including delivery of possession and its enjoyment. The property was also delivered only to Narayana Naidu and Ayyammal and they alone were in possession of the property." 12. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, the above said averments are clear admission regarding the execution of the settlement deed and its follow up action, including delivery of possession and its enjoyment. In the plaint, it is not specifically stated that the property belonged to Narayanasamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu as their self acquired property, though it is said, the property belonged to the above said two persons. Even it may be their self acquired acquisition or it may be ancestral in character, inherited, possessed by them, they are the owners of the property. The averments in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint do not say the nature of the property. In the original written statement also, we find no averments regarding the nature of the property, whether it is self acquisition or ancestral. 13. In the additional written statement sought to be filed, it is said: "The property covered by the said settlement deed, which is the suit property herein, was the ancestral and coparcenary property of the said two persons Narayanasamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu. Narayanasamy Naidu had six sons and Perumal Naidu had six sons and the suit property herein was part of the coparcenary property. As such the execution of Settlement deed regarding a part of the coparcenary property is legally invalid and cannot create any right." Here also, the defendants have not denied the execution of the settlement deed, its enforcement, subsequent transaction in respect of the same, between the parties. By way of clarification, based on legal position, now they want to say that the suit property belonged to the above said two persons, as ancestral and coparcenary property and the position being so, the settlement deed executed by them is not legally valid. When P.W.1 was in the box, in cross, he categorically admitted On the basis of this admission alone, it seems, the defendants want to say that the suit property originally belonged to Narayanaswamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu as their ancestral property and therefore, they had no absolute right to execute a valid settlement deed. No where in the additional written statement, they have denied the execution of the settlement deed by Narayanaswamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu. No where in the additional written statement, they have denied the execution of the settlement deed by Narayanaswamy Naidu and Perumal Naidu. It is not the case of the revision petitioners that they want to delete the averments in the original statement, which I have extracted above. Those averments are also available for defence, in addition to introducing some more defence. In fact, admitting the execution of the settlement deed and questioning its validity, based on legal position, supported by the nature of property, as admitted by P.W.1., this stand now sought to be taken by the defendants, by way of additional written statement, could not be described as inconsistent plea or it will not have the effect of erasing any right conferred upon the plaintiffs by the original written statement. All the defence, as such are available and the parties could agitate the same before the trial Court, since the suit is in the beginning stage of the trial. The additional written statement is in the nature of giving details, regarding the character of the property and in that process, legal position comes into play and that is why, they want to introduce the same also, which in effect, may invalidate the settlement deed to some extent, which should be decided only at the time of the trial. Therefore, by the filing of the additional written statement, it cannot be said that new case is introduced by the defendants, abandoning the old case or by the additional written statement, their right if any acquired, is going to be prejudiced or eclipsed. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon a decision in N. Srinivasan v. Muthammal (1998 II CTC 94) would contend, that the defendants could not be permitted to file additional written statement, where it raises inconsistent or alternative plea, depriving the plaintiffs' right. It appears in the above said decision, by the original written statement, benefit of statutory presumption was made available to the plaintiff and thereafter, the defendant attempted to negative the same by filing the additional written statement. Considering this fact, this Court has held that the alternative plea depriving the plaintiff's benefit of statutory presumption, that too at the belated stage, could not be allowed. Considering this fact, this Court has held that the alternative plea depriving the plaintiff's benefit of statutory presumption, that too at the belated stage, could not be allowed. In our case, by the original written statement, no benefit of statutory presumption was given to the plaintiffs and by filing the additional written statement also, no attempt is made to deprive the same. As aforementioned, in the original written statement, the execution of settlement deed is admitted and in the additional written statement also, it is reiterated, labeling the same as invalid, in view of the admission made by P.W.1. i.e. the plaintiff himself. In this view, the ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents is of no use to them. 15. Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. gives wide power to courts to give permission to defendant at any time, but fixing the maximum days for presenting the same. Except this restriction, I do not find any other restriction in granting leave for the defendants, to file additional written statement. 16. The trial court, without considering the effect of the original written statement and the additional written statement, as well as the scope of Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C., dismissed the application, only on technical grounds, probably that the petition is highly belated. True, the defendants have filed this application at the belated stage, when P.W.1 is in the box. This should not be the sole reason to deprive the right of the defendants, to take the defence available, which came into light subsequently, as pleaded in the affidavit. By providing this opportunity to the defendants, the right of the plaintiffs is not going to be prejudiced, that too in view of the admission made by them. In this view of the matter, I am constrained to conclude, that the trial Court has committed an error, in not giving the leave to the defendants, to file additional written statement and that error has to be rectified by allowing the C.R.P., as well as by allowing the I.A. seeking leave to file additional written statement. In the result the C.R.P. is allowed, setting aside the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.351/2003 and the I.A. is allowed. No costs. C.M.P.No.21591 of 2003 is closed.