1. This Second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 210. 2007 made in A.S.No.461 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City, Civil Court, Chennai confirming the order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.3589 of 2006 made in O.S.No.4327 of 2004 dismissing the suit, on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.4327 of 2004, on the file of the trial Court seeking a decree declaring that the settlement deed, in document No.1157 of 1995 dated 22.03.1995, on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Villivakkam as illegal, void abinitio and not binding on the plaintiff and to direct the respondent/defendant to deliver peaceful possession of the property and for other consequential reliefs. The suit had been taken on file and the respondent/defendant also filed his written statement. However, while the suit was pending, the respondent herein as defendant in the suit, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.3589 of 2006, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking an order rejecting the plaint, on the ground that a fraudulent document had been filed by the appellant/plaintiff in support of the suit claim. In the affidavit dated 20.02.2006, the respondent/defendant has averred that he had addressed the Tahsildar questioning the patta that was issued in the name of the appellant herein, for which, the Tahsildar sent his reply on 212. 2005 informing the respondent herein that no patta was issued in favour of the appellant and that the patta produced by the appellant herein was a forged document. In support of his claim, the respondent had filed a xerox copy of the alleged communication. The appellant herein as respondent/plaintiff filed his counter statement wherein, he had denied the allegations levelled against him by the respondent/defendant. As per the averments made in the counter, the appellant herein has stated that the petition filed by the defendant was totally devoid of merits and the respondent/defendant, suppressing the material fact that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.4344 of 2005 seeking relief of recovery of possession of the property from the appellants occupation and also for permanent injunction. According to him, the appellant/plaintiff had no knowledge whether the respondent/defendant had obtained any letter from the Tahsildar or not. The respondent herein having obtained a settlement deed from a person who has no right in the suit property and also a letter from a Tahsildar having no authority to issue the same, by producing the same, in support of his claim and the trial court based on the unreliable document rejected the plaint.

3. It is not in dispute that by order dated 23.02.2007, the Trial Court allowed, the petition filed by the respondent/defendant whereby rejected the plaint filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved, by which the appeal in A.S.No.46 of 2007 was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. Confirming the order and decreetal order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court by the impugned judgment dated 210. 2007 and hence the second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law in the second appeal:

1. Whether the Court below are right in rejecting the plaint when a cause of action for the institution of the suit had been clearly disclosed in the plaint?

2. Whether Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be invoked to reject the plaint relying upon the defence raised by the defendant?

3. Are the Court below justified in giving undue preference to the unsubstantiated case of the defendant by relying upon the settlement deed, police complaint and other documents generated pending the proceedings?

5. Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the court below without following the ma