The sufficiency of a plaint to disclose a cause of action and the impact of specific facts, such as the cancellation of a release deed, on the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

1. The defendant is the Revision Petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the dismissal of the petition to reject the plaint in I.A.No.3936 of 2014.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.6891 of 2013 seeking the (a) relief of delivery of vacant possession of property (entire first floor) bearing Old No.37, New No.16, III Cross Street, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028; (b) claiming a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as rent / damages for use and occupation and (c) relief of injunction restraining the defendants from subletting the property.

3. Brief facts:-

(i) The suit property originally belonged to one Arockiaswamy, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant. Arockiaswamy had three daughters, by name, Marita Vasanthi, Blis Marry @ Nalini and Jacqueline.

(ii) The suit property is claimed to be the self-acquired property of the defendant's father, having purchased the same from the Housing Board, through a sale deed, dated 21.02.1976.

(iii) Defendant's father died on 19.05.2005.

(iv) The defendant and three other sisters executed a release deed, dated 20.12.2005, in favour of the plaintiff's father, Augustian, and thereby he became the absolute owner of the property.

(v) The plaintiff's father executed a settlement deed, dated 25.08.2010, in favour of the plaintiff, which was accepted and acted upon.

(vi) The defendant was in permissive occupation of the property and permission has been revoked through a legal notice, dated 18.06.2013 and later on, as the property was not vacated, suit for delivery of possession has been filed.

4. So far as the defendant is concerned, it is her case that the release deed, dated 20.12.2005 was obtained by plaintiff's father by exercising undue influence, coercion and deception. When these facts came to the knowledge of the defendant, she cancelled the lease deed, by way of cancellation deed, dated 08.08.2012. It is contended by the defendant / respondent herein that in view of the cancellation of the release deed, the defendant became the co-parcener/co-owner of the suit property and therefore, there was no cause of action for filing the suit for delivery of possession.

5. The defendant has filed an Interim Application in I.A.No.3936 of 2014 to reject the plaint on the following contentions:-

(i) The claim of absolute ownership and the recovery of possession made on the basis of the claim made in the plaint are not maintainable.

(ii) There is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged cause of action does not exist as against the joint owner.

(iii) The plaintiff, having relied upon the release deed, dated 20.12.2005, executed by the defendant, has deliberately suppressed the cancellation deed, executed by the defendant on 08.08.2012.

6. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into the decisions relied upon by learned counsel on both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff contended that the grounds for rejection of plaint were neither available nor established and therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition to reject the plaint and hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. In order to support the proposition that no case for rejection of the plaint has been made out by the defendant and explaining the distinction between dismissal of the suit on the question of maintainability or based on any other preliminary issue operates as a bar for a fresh suit on the same cause of action, and it is not so, in the case of rejection of plaint, an unreported decision, dated 08.01.2013, rendered in S.A.No.711 of 2009 (A.Arumugam v. P.R.Palanisamy) is relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent herein, where-under this Court has pointed out that the defence plea shall not be taken into account at the stage of consideration of rejection of the plaint. The relevant observation in the decision, cited supra, reads thus:-

9. ...

11. Rejectio