The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaint should be read as a whole, and if it discloses a cause of action, it cannot be rejected. Additionally, the application of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in cases of fraud and deception was emphasized.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in C.R.P.No.1921 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.03.2019 made in I.A.No.319 of 2018 in O.S.No.335 of 2018 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.)

Common Order:

1. Since the revisions have been preferred on the same set of facts, submissions being common, they are taken up together and disposed of by means of this common order.

2. The revisions have been filed against the order dismissing petitioner's application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of these revisions are as follows:

(i) The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the Sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the petitioner/defendant as null and void and also to declare that the respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit scheduled property and consequently restrain the petitioner/defendant from in any manner alienating the suit schedule property.

(ii) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred in the plaint.

(iii) The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property. Earlier, lands were acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for its Housing Scheme. The acquisition proceedings have been challenged by the plaintiffs by way of writ petitions before this Court and the writ petitions were dismissed, challenging the same they have filed writ appeals and the same was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, thereby the land acquisition proceedings were set aside.

(iv) A Special Leave Petition has been before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board against that order and the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to file a review before this Court. Accordingly the Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed a review before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the review petitions and thereby set aside the judgement passed in the writ appeals.

(v) In the meantime, the defendant approached the plaintiffs and made them to believe that he will release all the lands from the land acquisition proceedings and for that purpose he proposed that a joint venture agreement be executed between them for developing the land by constructing apartments therein.

(vi) Believing the words of the defendant, the plaintiffs have singed several papers under the impression that all these were needed for joint development project. Since all the plaintiffs are hailing from agricultural family, they were not well versed with the worldly affairs. Believing the words of the defendant, they executed some documents that it was for the joint development project and the same was also duly registered. At any point of time, none of the plaintiffs have consented to convey the suit schedule property to the defendant and the documents executed by them are for the purpose of creating a joint development project for improvement of the lands.

(vii) Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know that some writ petitions have been filed before this Court for repossession of the lands under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and that the lands were released from the acquisition. As the petitioners have not filed any writ petition before this Court, on enquiry, they came to know that only the defendant has filed the writ petitions and played fraud by executing sale deeds in his favour in respect of all the lands covered under the acquisition proceedings on his own name.

(viii) Thereafter, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the said Advocate who has allegedly represented the plaintiffs before this Court in the writ petitions, and got a reply that the writ petitions have been filed only through the defendant.

(ix) It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have not sold the suit schedule