IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a false cause of action by itself cannot be a ground to terminate the plaint, and mis joinder of parties or causes of action cannot be considered for rejection of plaint.

JUDGMENT

1. These three civil revision petitions under article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by different defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2019.

2. These revision petitions sought for rejection of plaint in O.S.No.49 of 2019 in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and as the learned trial Court dismissed those applications, they have come up with these revision petitions.

3. Defendant No.1 in the suit filed I.A.No.404 of 2019 seeking for rejection of plaint and the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissed the same by an order dtd. 5/3/2020. Aggrieved by it, defendant No.1 filed C.R.P.No.1062 of 2020.

4. Defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.495 of 2019 seeking for rejection of plaint and that was dismissed by learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by an order dtd. 5/3/2020. Aggrieved by it, defendant No.3 filed C.R.P.No.1025 of 2020.

5. Defendant Nos.4,5 and 6 filed I.A.No.333 of 2019 seeking for rejection of plaint and that was dismissed by learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by an order dtd. 5/3/2020. Aggrieved by it, they filed C.R.P.No.1063 of 2020.

6. In all these revision petitions, respondent No.1 is the sole plaintiff in the suit. Remaining respondents are remaining defendants in the suit.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Veera Reddy and learned counsel Sri I.Koti Reddy and learned counsel Sri B. Samba Siva Rao appearing for revision petitioners and learned counsel Sri Chamarthy Gangadhar appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted arguments.

8. O.S.No.49 of 2019 is a suit filed by sole plaintiff as against six defendants as defendant Nos.1 to 6. Plaint schedule refers to item Nos.1 to 4 which are immovable properties. The relief claimed in the plaint is for partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares. One share is to be allotted for plaintiff and one share is to be allotted to defendant No.1 and two shares are to be allotted to defendant No.2. Division by metes and bounds and for costs and such other reliefs are prayed in the plaint.

9. The plaint averments are to the following effect: There was Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah. All the plaint schedule mentioned properties belonged to him and he owned and possessed them during his life time. In a sound and disposing state of mind, he executed a registered will dtd. 6/5/1985. Under this will he had bequeathed certain extents of item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in favour of his daughter-in-law by name Seshamamba alias Seshamma. The husband of the legatee is Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao.

10. Though item No.4 of the plaint schedule was also owned and possessed by Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah, he did not make it a part of the registered will referred above.

11. Under the above referred will Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah bequeathed a part of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant No.2.

12. For Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah, there was only one son by name Sri Y. Venkateswara Rao. Smt. Seshamamba is wife of Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao. These spouses have three children namely Anjani Kumari, Vijaya Lakshmi/D2 and Kesava Rao. Among them, Sri Kesava Rao died during April 1985 and he had no children and his wife Udaya Lakshmi re-married another person and left the family without claiming any rights over the properties. Smt.Anjani Kumari died intestate on 29/9/2013. Smt. Anjani Kumari was survived by her daughter who is the plaintiff and her brother Sri A.Krishna Rao/defendant No.1.

13. In the plaint, it is further stated that Sri Y. Venkata Subbaiah, the original owner of these properties, died testate on 5/4/1996. On his death, his will dtd. 6/5/1985 came into operation. By virtue of the said will, his daughter-inlaw/Seshamamba and his grand-daughter/defendant No.2 became absolute owners of the properties as referred in the earlier paragraphs.

14. Smt. Seshamamba who got the properties under the will died intestate on 12/7/2009. During her life time, she did not