S. KARTHIK Vs. BAGYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.163 of 2018 in O.S.No.750 of 2007 dtd. 18/4/2018 on the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, thereby dismissing the petition for rejection of plaint.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants 9 to 11 and one deceased Bagyalakshmi and the respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs originally filed a suit for declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule II property and to direct the defendants 1 to 4 to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule II property to them along with damages. After filing the written statement, the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed a petition for amendment to include the prayer for declaration to declare that the impugned sale deed dtd. 30/11/1979 registered vide document No.2128 of 1979 is null and void. When the suit was posted for further evidence of defendants, the petitioners/defendants 9 to 11 filed a petition for rejection of plaint and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) Mr.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed a petition for rejection of plaint on two grounds viz., (i) The suit itself is barred by limitation, (ii) There is no cause of action to file the suit as against the petitioners. He further submitted that the case of the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs is that the suit property was in permissive possession by the petitioners. Whereas, in the amended plaint, they stated that when one Pattammal was not in a state of sound mind, the alleged sale deed was said to have been executed by her on 30/11/1979 registered vide document No.2128 of 1979. The said Pattammal died in the year 1999. After a period of 20 years, the impugned suit has been laid seeking possession of the suit property, that too after a period of nearly 30 years from the date of sale deed. After the death of the said Pattammal, the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs permitted the petitioners/defendants 9 to 11 to reside in permissive possession and the deceased first defendant, who is grandfather of the first petitioner herein, has been paying monthly permission fee of Rs.500.00 till revocation of the same. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no document was annexed with the plaint to that effect. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file the impugned suit. In fact, after purchase of the property from the said Pattammal, the first defendant had mutated the revenue records in the year 1980 itself. Thereafter, all the revenue documents were mutated in his name and after execution of the Will in favour of the petitioners herein, the revenue documents were mutated in favour of the petitioners herein. He further submitted that at any time before passing judgment, the petition can be filed for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The respondents 1 to 4 cleverly drafted the plaint with the illusionary cause of action, as if the suit is filed within limitation, seeking prayer for declaration to declare that the suit property in their favour, as if they did not have knowledge about the sale deed executed by the said Pattammal in favour of the deceased first defendant. Therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to file the present suit and prayed for rejection of the plaint. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments are as follows:-