The main legal point established is that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are exhaustive and should be exercised to combat vexatious litigations, and the court should consider the causes of action in both suits while deciding on the rejection of the plaint.

1. Application No. 2916 of 2014: This application has been filed at the instance of defendants 1 to 9 in the suit C.S. No. 358 of 2013 in terms of Section 10 CPC, seeking for grant of stay in O.S. No. 7533 of 2010 on the file of the 19th Additional Court, Chennai.

2. Application No. 2917 of 2014:

Defendants 1 to 9 in suit C.S. No. 358 of 2013 have taken out this application seeking for rejection of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff filed suit C.S. No. 358 of 2013 for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property, for recovery of possession and damages, permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 9 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property and for costs.

4. Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 are the sons and daughters respectively of one Dasaratha Naidu while the fifth defendant is his wife. The case of the applicants / defendants 1 to 9 is that the said Dasaratha Naidu filed a suit in C.S. No. 554 of 2010 against Sree Varadharaja Benefit Fund Limited (tenth defendant in the present suit), one Appadurai, A. Thiyagarajan and one Raja Sikkandar (plaintiff in the present suit) for declaration that the sale deed dated 03.03.2010 executed by Appadurai in favour of Raja Sikkandar, is null and void as the same has been obtained by undue influence and fraud and for a consequential permanent injunction. The applicants have stated that the suit property was a residential property which was mortgaged with the above said Benefit Fund Limited, viz., the first defendant in that suit, and loans were raised. The second defendant in the said suit was the Director of the Benefit Fund. It is also alleged that the second defendant, without adverting to the procedure, had brought the mortgaged property for sale and the fourth defendant therein, who is the present plaintiff, was the successful bidder as a result of which, a sale deed dated 03.03.2010 was executed and the said sale was under challenge in C.S. No. 554 of 2010 and this Court had granted interim injunction in O.A. No. 639 of 2010 by order dated 27.5.2010 and the same is in force. While so, the suit was transferred to the file of Fifth Fast Track Court, Chennai, and was re-numbered as O.S. No. 7533 of 2010. It is further stated that the plaintiff in the present suit, who was 4th defendant therein, had also filed his written statement and contested the suit by engaging the counsel and the said suit is in the stage of trial. While so, the fourth defendant in the said suit / the plaintiff has filed the present suit in C.S. No. 358 of 2013 for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession and for the consequential reliefs.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the cause of action in O.S. No. 7533 of 2010 arises out of the sale deed dated 03.03.2010 which was executed in favour of the plaintiff in the present suit in which the applicants' title is at stake. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that while the present plaintiff, who was arrayed as defendant No. 4 in the previous suit, has been contesting the said suit, has filed the present suit based on the same cause of action, viz., the date on which the property was sold in his favour, ie., 03.03.2010. Since the cause of action, parties and subject matter are all same in both the suits, according to the learned counsel, the result in O.S. No. 7533 of 2010 would have a bearing on the present suit and hence, prayed for rejection of the plaint.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / plaintiff has filed his counter affidavit contending that the first respondent / plaintiff is the bona fide auction purchaser and by virtue of the sale deed dated 03.03.2010, he has become the absolute owner of the suit property. It is also submitted that while the previous suit filed by the applicants was for setting aside the sale deed, the present suit is for declaration of title o