UMA Vs. G.ARUNAI THEEPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dtd. 26/10/2016 made in I.A.No.846 of 2015 in O.S.No.273 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.NO.273 of 2014. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 2 to 4 in the said suit. The 1st respondent filed the said suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to convey the suit property to and in favour of her children, the respondents 2 and 3 by executing deed of settlement or gift, directing the 4th respondent / Sub Registrar not to receive and register any document of conveyance or encumbrance or charge pertaining to the suit schedule property, permanent injunction restraining the petitioner, her men and agents or anybody claiming under her from encumbering or alienating the suit property and for a direction to the petitioner to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff / 1st respondent herein. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.846 of 2015 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint in the said suit. According to the petitioner, the suit does not disclose any cause of action and liable to be rejected. The Court erred in numbering the suit. The suit property is standing in the name of the petitioner and the relief now sought for is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration. The allegations in the plaint are vexatious and meritless. The averments in the plaint do not disclose a clear right or material to sue and in such circumstances, it is the duty of the Court to exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and reject the plaint in the beginning itself and plaint need not be kept pending till final adjudication. The 1st respondent must state in his plaint the fact or circumstances which will enable him to get a decree and the same should be set out in clear terms in the plaint. But, in the plaint nothing is stated so. When the 1st respondent has no right to sue, no right in respect of the suit property and when the 1st respondent has failed to establish the above required materials, the plaint must be rejected as plaint does not have any cause of action. The 1st respondent has no locus standi to file the suit and prayed for rejection of plaint.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit in the said I.A. and contended that he is a life member of Indian Medical Association (IMA), Tamil Nadu State branch. The layout was formed in the name of "Doctor's Colony" and only life members of Indian Medical Association (IMA) can buy the plot either in his name or in his spouse name. The 1st respondent purchased the suit property in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of the children i.e., respondents 2 and 3 out of his own funds. The 1st respondent further stated that the transaction is benami transaction and the 1st respondent will prove the same by letting in evidence during Trial. The present suit has triable issue and the suit is maintainable as the 1st respondent has mentioned the cause of action in the plaint and plaint cannot be rejected and prayed for dismissal of the I.A.No.846 of 2015.