MOHALA Vs. M.SIVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have filed the present revision against the rejection of their application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The main ground raised before the trial Court for rejecting the suit is that the plaint averments do not disclose a cause of action.

(2.) Heard Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and

(3.) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the averments in the plaint do not disclose that the petitioners herein have a right over the suit property vis-avis., the interest of the defendants and that the suit has been filed at a surmise of a cause of action which is yet to arise. According to the learned Senior counsel, the alleged sale agreement dated 21.01.2004 entered between the plaintiff and one Malathiammal cannot be deemed to be a Deed of Conveyance. By placing reliance on Sections 5455 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the alleged sale agreement between the plaintiff and the Malathiammal do not confer any title or transfer of any interest in the suit property and the protection envisaged under section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, also cannot be invoked against the petitioners herein, who are not the proposed vendors but only third parties to the agreement. It is his submission that the order of the trial Court, rejecting their application under Order 7, Rule 11 on the ground that these aspects could be decided only during the course of trial, is improper.