The rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be based on the plain reading of the plaint itself, and the principle of res-judicata cannot be applied at the threshold without a full-fledged trial.

1. The eighth defendant in a suit for partition and permanent injunction, is the petitioner before this Court. The respondents are the plaintiffs therein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court in dismissing his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as found in the plaint, in short is as follows:

The second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff and one late Gomathi. The first defendant is the father-in-law of the first plaintiff, maternal grandfather of the second plaintiff and father of the said late Gomathi. The defendants 2 to 4 are the daughters of the first defendant and defendants 5 to 7 are the husbands of the defendants 2 to 4 respectively and the son-in-laws of the first defendant. The eighth defendant is a stranger to the plaintiffs' family and alleged agreement holder with the first defendant. The first defendant had one son, by name Jeganathan and he died in the year 1985 without any marriage. The ninth defendant is the wife of the first defendant. After the sale of various joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4, they were vested with a property measuring an extent of 1.98 acres in S.No.152/2C only, which is the suit property. The said Gomathi became co-sharer in the joint family and was entitled to common 1/5th share in the suit property. The plaintiffs along with the said Gomathi were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the death of the said Gomathi, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share of the said Gomathi, as they succeeded to the common 1/5th share in the suit property. From then on, the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the suit property. The demand by the plaintiffs for amicable partition was refused. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the abovesaid suit by elaborately making various allegations and averments.

3. The petitioner as eighth defendant, filed I.A.No.686 of 2013 in O.S.No.93 of 2012 before the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking for rejection of plaint on the following grounds:

(a) The plaintiffs are not in joint possession or in effective possession of the suit property, and therefore, the Court fee paid with an allegation of joint possession, is not proper. (b) The defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.226 of 2005 against the petitioner for injunction and the same was dismissed, holding that they are not in possession. Likewise, the petitioner already filed a suit for specific performance and got a decree in his favour against the defendants and therefore, the present suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata.

(c) The plaintiffs have not included all the joint family properties in the present suit for partition and only shown the property purchased by the petitioner as the suit property. Therefore, the suit is bad on the reason that the plea is for partial partition.

(d) There is no cause of action.

4. The plaintiffs resisted the said application. After hearing both sides, the trial Court rejected the application by holding that there is a specific plea in the plaint that the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment, and therefore, based on such plea made in the plaint, the Court fee paid is correct. It is further found by the Court below that even if the Court fee paid is not correct, the plaint cannot be rejected on that ground and the same has to be only returned for payment of deficit Court fee. Insofar as the objection with regard to the partial partition is concerned, the trail Court found that the petitioner has not come out with the details of other properties available for partition, except saying that there are some more properties omitted to be included in the suit. In any event, the plaint cannot be rejected based on such allegation made by the eighth defendant. Insofar as the question of res-judicata as raised by the eighth defendant is concerned, the trial Court pointed out that neither the pl