1. The question agitated in these appeals is as to whether the learned trial Judge erred in law to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code? My answer is in the affirmative for following reasons.

2. The case of the appellant (Original Plaintiffs) is that they are legal heirs of Prahladsingh Ramkhilavan Singh. Their father claimed as Tenant of the premises described as 'Stable with surrounding open land at Final Plot No. 113 and 114 at TPS V Scheme Vile Parle (East)'. He disclaimed Lessor’s right by refusing to pay rent for 12 years and claimed ownership by adverse possession. Second defendants in S.C Suit no 3856 of 1999 and S.C. Suit no. 3857 of 1999 were his servants residing in the stable permitted as gratuitous licensee. They were not in possession or occupation of any premises. They had filed suit against the plaintiffs in the court of small causes being suit no. 3164 of 1981 and 3165 of 1985. First Defendant decided to develop the property and had entered into agreements with second defendants in the suit to provide flats to them admeasuring 260 Sq. feet carpet area to each of them, in the proposed building of the proposed society. The Plain