ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 28.07.2017 passed in I.A. No. 67 of 2009 in A.S. No. 22 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court at Villupuram. 2. The plaintiffs/civil revision petitioners have laid the suit for the relief’s of declaration and possession. 3. In brief, according to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to Pulugammal and she had conveyed the property to Puluvan Chettiar by way of Ex.A1 sale deed dated 07.05.1940 and Puluvan Chettiar had executed a registered settlement deed dated 12.12.1967 in favour of his son Govindarajulu and as per the abovesaid settlement deed, Govindarajulu had only the life enjoyment and after his death, his legal heirs are entitled to take the property settled absolutely, and on the other hand, Govindarajulu had conveyed the property settled on his behalf and on behalf of his minor children to Munusamy Kounder by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.09.1981 and Munusamy Kounder in turn had sold the suit property in favour of the defendant by way of a sale deed dated 20.01.2000 and accordingly contending that the suit property is the joint family property and contending that the alienation effected by Govindarajulu in favour of Munuamy Kounder and the sale deed executed by Munusamy Kounder in favour of the defendant are invalid and accordingly, claiming title to the suit property, the plaintiffs had laid the suit for the relief’s of declaration and possession and also for mesne profits. 4. 4. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit by contending that Puluvan Chettiar had no right to settle the property in favour of Govindarajulu since the property settled is the joint family property and hence the settlement deed dated 12.12.1967 is void abinitio and further according to the defendant, Govindarajulu, as the family manager, had sold the suit property to Munusamy Kounder and thereafter Munusamy Kounder and his son had sold the suit property in favour of the defendant for a valid consideration and as the sale deed effected by Govindarajulu is only to discharge the debts and for the welfare of the minors and the plaintiffs having been benefitted by the abovesaid sale transaction, accordingly, the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the sale deed executed by their father Govindarajulu and it is only the defendant who has title to the suit property and in enjoyment of the same and also perfected the title to the suit property by way of the adverse possession and hence prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the materials placed on record, the trial court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has preferred the first appeal. Pending first appeal, it is found that the defendant had preferred an application in I.A. No. 67 of 2009 for the reception of additional written statement. According to the defendant, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, the alienation effected in contravention of the provisions contained therein is voidable at the first instance of the minors and not a void transaction and in as much as the sale deed had been executed by Govindarajulu on his behalf and on behalf of his minor children and the plaintiffs being the Eo-nominee parties to the sale deed dated 09.09.1981 executed by their father, are bound to seek for setting aside the sale deed and hence according to him, the suit, as framed by the plaintiffs is not proper and maintainable without seeking setting aside of the sale deed dated 09.09.1981 and accordingly contending that the abovesaid defence had to be taken by him by way of the additional written statement and has laid the petition with reference the same. 6. 6. The plaintiffs resisted the abovesaid application contending that the defendant is not entitled to raise additional pleas at the appeal stage and further they would also contend that the application for the reception of additional written statement has not been filed within the time allowed by law and had been filed by the defendant only to fill up the lacunae in his defence and also by way of the additional written statement, the defendant is attempting to raise new pleas and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the said petition. 7. The court below on considering the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, entertained the application preferred by the defendant for the reception of additional written statement. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 8. On the basis of the materials placed on record, it is seen that both the parties are endeavouring to claim title to the suit property based on the settlement deed dated 12.12.1967. Now, according to the plaintiffs, their father is not entitled to alienate the property settled in favour of Munusamy Kounder and in turn Munusamy Kounder is not entitled to alienate the property in favour of the defendant and accordingly claiming that they are entitled to the suit property, the plaintiffs have laid the suit for appropriate relief’s. 9. Per contra, the defendant has raised a plea in their written statement that the settlement deed dated 12.12.1969 itself is void as the property settled is the joint family property, even otherwise, according to the defendant, the plaintiffs' father Govindarajulu had alienated the property as the family manager on his behalf and on behalf of his minor children and hence the sale deed dated 09.09.1981 effected by him in favour of Munusamy Kounder is for the welfare of the minors and the same is binding upon the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the sale transaction effected by their father and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. 10. In the light of the abovesaid rival claims put forth by the parties, it is seen that the defendant had already raised the plea that the sale deed executed by Govindarajulu in favour of Munusamy Kounder is for the benefit of the minors, namely, the plaintiffs, and accordingly the plaintiffs are bound by the said sale transaction effected by their father. Now, at the appeal stage, they have laid an application for the reception of additional written statement. In the additional written statement, he had only pleaded that the plaintiffs being the Eo-nominee parties to the sale transaction dated 09.09.1981, executed by their father Govindarajulu, the plaintiffs are bound by the abovesaid sale transaction and accordingly put forth the plea that without setting aside the sale transaction, the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit and accordingly chosen to lay the petition for reception of the additional written statement with reference to the said facts. 11. The first appellate court on an analysis of the rival contentions put forth by the parties as well as considering the various factors put forth by the respective parties, noting that the plea taken by the defendant in the additional written statement is only a legal plea, which could be raised at any point of time and accordingly, thought it fit that the plaintiffs having come forward with the suit seeking title to the suit property by way of throwing a challenge to the sale transaction effected by their father and accordingly, the plaintiffs would be required, as per law, for seeking to set aside the said sale transaction effected by their father and the said plea, being only in the nature of a legal plea, accordingly deemed it fit to entertain the reception of additional written statement projected by the defendant. 12. As rightly determined by the first appellate court, the defendant in their written statement has already taken the plea that the plaintiffs are bound by the sale transaction effected by their father Govindarajulu, as the said sale transaction had been effected for the family necessity and for the discharge of the debts and accordingly contended that that the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the sale transaction effected by their father. Thus, it is found that when the sale transaction dated 09.09.1981 is found to have been effected by Gonvindarajulu for himself and on behalf of the minor children and accordingly the plaintiffs, being the Eo-nominee parties to the same, it is found that for seeking relief's to the suit property, the plaintiffs are, as per law, required to challenge the said sale transaction in the manner known to law. Accordingly, it is found that only in continuation of the earlier pleas raised in the written statement, it is found that, the defendant, by way of the additional written statement, has taken the plea that the plaintiffs should have come forward with the prayer of setting aside the sale transaction effected by their father Govindarajulu and accordingly the abovesaid plea raised by the defendant, being purely a legal plea and not requiring the adduction of any evidence on the part of the parties with reference to the same and accordingly the court below considering that by way entertaining the additional written statement, multiciplity of proceedings could be avoided between the parties as regards the issues involved between them and accordingly found it fit to entertain the petition laid by the defendant for the reception of additional written statement. 13. In the light of the position that the plea put forth by the defendant by way of additional written statement is found to be purely a legal plea and no evidence with reference to the same is required to be adduced by the parties and when the defendant had already raised the plea that the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the sale transaction effected by their father as the same had been executed for the family necessity and for discharging the debts and for the welfare of the minor children, in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the court below is found to be justified in entertaining the petition laid by the defendant for the reception of additional written statement. That apart, the plaintiffs, being the parties to the sale transaction effected by their father as Eo-nominee parties, it is seen that the plaintiffs should have come forward with the suit in challenging the said sale transaction within 3 years on attaining majority. Thus, it is seen that by way of the additional written statement, the defendant has put forth the point of limitation also to resist the plaintiffs' suit. Thus, it is seen that by way of the additional written statement, the defendant has put forth the point of limitation also to resist the plaintiffs' suit. When as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed, although the limitation has not been set up as defence, subject to the provisions of Limitation Act 1963, and when by way of additional statement, the defendant has also projected the plea of limitation, in such view of the matter, it is found that merely because the said plea had not been specifically stated by the defendant in the original written statement, that by itself, cannot be held to be precluding the defendant from raising the point of limitation at a later point of time. 14. In the light of the abovesaid factors, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the court below in entertaining the additional written statement preferred by the defendant and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.