Disputed questions, including property ownership and limitation, should be decided at trial and should not serve as grounds for rejecting the plaint.

1. This application has been filed by the applicants/defendants 1 to 5, under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order to reject the plaint in C.S.No.175 of 2014.

2. Since the present application has been filed for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents 1 to 3, it would be appropriate to extract the averments made in the plaint.

3. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows

(i) The plaintiffs, who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the grand children of one late Mr. P. Vedagiri. The defendants 2 to 5 are the children of the said Vedagiri and the first defendant/first applicant is the second wife of the deceased Vedagiri. During the life time, the said Vedagiri in the year 1961, by way of sale, vide Document No.1716/1961, dated 21.09.1961 had purchased a property situated in Plot No.8, Old Door No.98, 14A, New Door No.135A, New No.82/163, consisting of one ground and 1818 sq.ft of land comprising in S.No.629, S.No.629/4, S.No.629/4 (part), Mylapore Village at Venkatachala Mudali Street (V.M. Street), Royapettah, Chennai-14, for a valuable sale consideration.

(ii) The said Vedagiri had two wives. The name of the first wife is Jagadambal, who is the grandmother of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3. The second wife is Mrs. Kousalya, who is the first defendant in the suit. The defendants 2 to 5 are the sons and daughter of the said Kousalya. Out of the wedlock of the P. Vedagiri and Jagadambal, a girl child was born, named as G. Kamalini, who is the mother of the plaintiffs herein. The said Jagadambal predeceased her husband, P. Vedagiri on 29.12.1958, leaving behind her husband P. Vedagiri and daughter V. Kamalini. Thereafter, the said Vedagiri had married Mrs. Kousalya, the first defendant herein to look after the child. The said Kamalini, who is the mother of the plaintiffs died on 19.06.2013, leaving behind the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 as Legal heirs to succeed her estate. The defendants 2 to 5 were born out the second wedlock between P. Vedagiri and Kousalya, i.e., the first defendant. The suit A Schedule property is Hindu undivided family property, wherein the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 5 are joint owners. The plaintiffs state that the defendants 1 to 5 had mortgaged the entire schedule A properties with the 6th defendant and the details are extracted hereunder:    

All the above said mortgages were registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore.

(iii) The suit schedule A property consists of ten portions, out of 10 portions, 6 portions situated in the Ground floor, 4 portions in second floor, out of which, the defendants 1 to 5 let out 6 portions to the third parties for rent. It is stated by the plaintiffs that the rent collected from the let out portion were swallowed by the defendants 1 to 5. It is stated that the entire property has been mortgaged several times by the defendants 1 to 5, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, who have got equal right and ownership over the schedule A property. In fact, the second plaintiff is in actual physical possession of 800 square feet of building in first floor occupied and used as a ware house for his business. Since the said Vedagiri died intestate, the schedule A property was equally devolved upon his both wives with their respective children, accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to equal share. Hence, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, seeking the following reliefs:

(a) to pass preliminary decree by partition and divide the schedule A and s