The decision to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should be based solely on the averments made in the plaint and not on the defense plea or documents produced by the defendant. Suppression of material facts alone does not entitle a defendant to have the plaint rejected as lacking in cause of action.

1. The second defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. Plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.322 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, is the first respondent herein and the first defendant in the original suit is the second respondent in the second appeal. The suit was filed by the first respondent PR.Palanisamy against the appellant herein and the second respondent: 1) for a declaration that the document dated 06.09.1994 registered as document No.104 of 1994 purporting to cancel the will of P.Rangaswamy Gounder, father of the first respondent/plaintiff dated 07.12.1983 registered as document No.59 of 1983 on the file of Sub Registrar, Singanallur, in which Masathal and Subbathal signed as confirming parties, to be null and void and not binding on the first respondent herein/plaintiff; 2) for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein/second defendant from in any manner alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit property described in schedules 'A' to 'E' in the plaint; 3) for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein/second defendant from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first respondent/plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and 4) for cost.

2. After service of summons in the original suit, the appellant herein/second defendant entered appearance and filed an Interlocutory Application I.A.No.1215/2007 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, after hearing, allowed the said petition and rejected the plaint by his order dated 31.10.2007. As the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is deemed to be a decree, the first respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.163/2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, by judgment and decree dated 16.06.2009, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial court and dismissed I.A.No.1215/2007 with a consequent direction to the trial court to restore the suit on file, frame issues and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The said judgment and the decree of the lower appellate court dated 16.06.2009 are challenged in the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of second appeal.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are as follows:

(i) One P.Rangaswamy Gounder had two wives by names Masathal and Subbathal. He had purchased the properties described in plaint schedules 'A' to 'E'. The property described in plaint Schedule 'B' was purchased jointly in the names Rangaswamy Gounder and his second wife Subbathal. The property described in plaint 'C' schedule was purchased in the name of Masathal. The property described in plaint 'D' schedule was purchased jointly in the names of Rangaswamy Gounder and his first wife Masathal. In order to avoid any future litigation in respect of his properties, Rangaswamy Gounder, during his life time, executed a Will on 07.12.1983 and got it registered as document No.59 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Singanallur.

Though some of the suit properties had been purchased jointly in the names of Rangaswamy Gounder and his first wife or the second wife, as the case may be, in the above said Will, the said Masathal and Subbathal were given only life estate. Subsequently, the second wife of Rangaswamy Gounder, namely Subbathal died in the year 2006. Rangaswamy Gounder, Subbathal and Masathal had no issues. The first respondent/plaintiff PR.Palanisamy is none other than the son of the other sister of Masathal and Subbathal. While so, a document purporting to cancel the said will of Rangaswamy Gounder came to be executed by Masathal and registered as document No.104/1994. Masathal also died on 14.07.2007. Claiming that he got knowledge of the said cancellation deed dated 06.09.1994 only in June