In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupur, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.03.2014 passed in I.A.No.735 of 2013 in O.S. No.45 of 2013, on the file of Subordinate Court, Tirupur.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

(a) Whether the courts below are correct in law in invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure overlooking the fact that reasons for which plaint was sought to be rejected, are all matters warranting a full-fledged trial and not enough to reject the plaint ?

2. When the vendor of the appellants viz. D. Rathinamani had been clearly acquitted by the Division bench of this Hon'ble Court, are the courts below correct in law in proceeding on the erroneous footing that the vendor of the appellants is a murderer, based only on the verdict rendered by the Magistrate, which had been subsequently set aside by this Hon'ble Court ?

3. When the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 can be invoked only if it is proved that a person is guilty of murdering a person regarding whose property he or she, intends to inherit, whether the courts below are correct in law in applying the aforesaid provisions particularly when D.Rathinamani was acquitted in the criminal case?

4. When even assuming without admitting that D.Rathinamani cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased husband and when she had acquired right over ¾th share by virtue of the Release Deed executed by her three daughters including the respondents, whether the courts below are correct in law in applying the provisions of Sections 25 & 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, overlooking the nature of the right acquired by D.Rathinamani?"

3. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

4. The suit in O.S.No.45 of 2013 has been laid by the plaintiffs against the defendants for recovery of money and the plaintiffs have laid the above suit on the footing that they had purchased the house property described in the plaint schedule from one D.Rathinamani @ Nagarathinamani by way of a sale deed dated 04.03.2010 and the defendants are the daughters of the abovesaid D.Rathinamani @ Nagarathinamani and the vendor abovestated has delivered the possession of the house property to the plaintiffs. However, the vendor did not hand over the main document of title as it was represented that the same had been lost and the plaintiffs were also made to believe that the original document of title had been lost on the strength of the publication given in the newspaper and the receipt given by the police as regards the loss of the title deed. On that premise, it is stated that the plaintiffs had purchased the house property from the vendor by paying the entire sale consideration. Later, the plaintiffs came to know that their vendor had deposited the original documents with HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupur with a view to create an equitable mortgage for the purpose of securing loan availed by a partnership firm by name Diam Exports in which the vendor was also one of the partners and the plaintiffs also came to know that the HDFC Bank Ltd., had initiated recovery proceedings for the recovery of the amount due to them and thereby took steps to bring the property for sale. On coming to know of the same, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.146 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tirupur for an order restraining State Bank of India, Tirupur from paying the amount available with them in the name of the plaintiffs' vendor so as the enable the creditor bank i.e., HDFC Bank to recover the amount by taking appropriate and necessary action and appropriate the same towards the amount due to them. The above steps had been taken by the plaintiffs only with a view to save the property purchased by them and accordingly the Dist