V JAYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS Vs. ASHOKAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 17.10.2014 made in I.A.No.145 of 2014 in O.S.No.615 of 2012 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

(2.) The first respondent as a plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant to make any alteration in physical features. The defendants filed a written statement and contested the suit. During the pendency, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC stating that there is no cause of action for filing of the suit. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, has dismissed the application. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no cause of action for filing of the suit because originally the mother of the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.384 of 2009 for injunction wherein she has stated that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, Advocate Commissioner was appointed, he inspected the property and filed a report stating that the defendants 3 and 4, namely, respondents 2 and 3 herein were in possession and enjoyment of the same as tenants under defendants 1 and 2. Immediately, she withdrew the suit and executed a settlement deed in faovur of the respondent/plaintiff and in turn, the first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and so, there is no cause of action. That factum was not considered by the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.