ORDER :

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.07.2012 in I.A.No.261 of 2012 in O.S.No.2604 of 2004, on the file of the learned IIIrd Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating or encumbering the suit property till her life time. It is clear from the pleadings made in the plaint that the right as claimed by the plaintiff was based on the Will dated 21.06.1982. This Will was executed by one Masilamani, who is the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was born to Masilamani through his first wife. After the death of the first wife, the said Masilamani married the defendant. During his life time, Masilamani had executed a Will dated 21.06.1982. According to this Will, the defendant was given life interest in the suit property and the vested remainder was given to any male or female child born to the defendant through Masilamani.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that there was a son born to the defendant namely Arokiasamy and he died in a road accident on 06.07.2004. Therefore, on the death of the said Arokiasamy, the only right that is left to the defendant is the life estate given under the Will and after her life, the property will come back to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant filed a written statement. A petition for rejection of plaint was filed by the defendant on the ground that the relief sought for by the plaintiff is barred by law, since the property has absolutely vested with the defendant and the plaintiff has no right over the property and therefore, he cannot seek for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The Court below has dismissed this application mainly on the ground that there are triable issues in the suit, which requires evidence to be let in and therefore, those issues cannot be decided in an application filed for rejection of plaint.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only issue that requires to be decided in the suit is as to whether on the death of Arokiasmay, whether the defendant will only be entitled to life interest under the Will or on the death of Arokiasamy, the defendant will get the property absolutely as the legal heir of Arokiasamy.

6. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions, brought to the notice of this Court Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Illustration (i) under the said provision. The learned counsel submitted that on the death of Masilamani, the Will came into force and the property vested absolutely in favour of Arokiasamy by virtue of the above provision. The learned counsel further submitted that just because, the possession and enjoyment was postponed, the vesting of right does not get postponed and it happens immediately on the birth of Arokiasamy.

7. The learned counsel in order to further substantiate his submissions, brought to the notice of this Court, Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This provision speaks about the manner in which a person gets a vested interest in the property. The learned counsel specifically relied upon the expression “a vested interest is not defeated by the death of the transferee before he obtains possession”. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of P.Somasundaram Vs. K.Rajammal reported in AIR 1976 MD 295 and in the case of Karuppanasamy Vs Saraswathy and others reported in 2018-3-L.W. 352.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submi