M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The defendants are the revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.182 of 2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 dated 31.10.2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for declaration and for permanent injunction. After filing the written statement, this petitioners/defendants have filed the present I.A.No.182 of 2011 under Order 7, Rule 11 (1) of CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground of no cause of action.

3. The case of the petitioners/defendants is that the first defendant's father Munusamy Gounder, who was the sole and absolute owner of the property of Nanja land comprised in S.No.121/1, measuring to an extent of 25 cents, situated at T. Thangal Village, Agarakorakottai Madura, Thellar Sub-Division, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

4. During the life time, the first defendant's father Munusamy Gounder had settled the property in favour of Mrs.Vijayakumari/the first plaintiff herein as per the settlement deed dated 06.08.1985 registered as Doc.No.1631 of 2010 on the file of the S.R.O., Thellar. After registering the said settlement deed, the first defendant namely Vijayakumari has became absolute owner of the entire land.

5. While being so, on 26.05.2010, the first respondent/first plaintiff has sold the land to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. as per the sale deed in Doc.No.1631 of 2010, on the file of the S.R.O., Thellar on 26.05.2010 in favour of the first defendant and from that day onwards, the first defendant became the sole and absolute owner of all that vacant plot measuring to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. (around 4 cents), comprised in Old S.No.121/1 and New S.No.121/1D situated at T. Thangal Village, Agarakorakottai Madura, Thellar Sub-Division, Vandavasi Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, bounded on the North by remaining property of Mrs. Vijayakumari, South by remaining property of Mrs. Vijayakumari, East by Thellar Co-operative society employees vacant plot, West by T.Thangal Road.

6. The first respondent also come forward by saying that after purchasing the said property, the first defendant has started constructing a house in his property, when the construction work was in progress in the first petitioner's property, the first plaintiff with an ill advice of some parties, started demanding some more money without any basis. The first defendant also states that recently he has completed the house construction in his property and he has been owning, possessing and enjoying the same till date without any hindrance from any quarter peacefully. But, at the time of Grahapravesam, the first respondent/first plaintiff again with malafide intention to grab money by hook or crook, illegally demanded the huge money from the first defendant with an ulterior motive knowing fully well that the value of the first defendant's property has gone up.

7. The first defendant also states that this petitioners/defendants never tress passed and attempted to make compound wall in the first plaintiff's property on 01.09.2010 and 01.12.2010 or any other date. They also undertake that they will not trespass and make any kind of construction in the first plaintiff's property, but the first defendant has constructed the house only in his property.

8. The petitioners/defendants also state that when the first respondent/first plaintiff sold the land to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. (around 4 cents) in favour of the first plaintiff out of the suit schedule property i.e. 25 cents, she cannot seek the relief of declaration in respect of entire suit property and she filed the above suit fraudulently. Therefore, there is no cause of action against the defendants or against the first defendant's property in the above suit and hence he filed the above application for rejecting the plaint on two grounds that there was no cause of action arising in the suit against the defendants.

9. Heard Mr. V. Bhi