JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decree of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore dated 24.11.2017 passed in I.A.No.447 of 2016 in O.S.No.34 of 2016 dismissing the petition to reject the plaint.)

This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.

1. The defendants in OS No.34 of 2016, have come up with this Civil Revision Petition. Challenging an order dated 07.06.2016 made in IA No.447 of 2016, in and by which, the Trial Court dismissed the application for striking out the plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The suit was laid by the respondents/ plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction or in alternative declaring the plaintiffs’ easementary right over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as pathway in exercise of easementary right over the same.

3. The plaintiffs sued for the above said reliefs contending that the property is a private pathway leading to the second plaintiff School. It is also stated that there were earlier litigations with reference to the suit property in OS No.1421 of 1981, in which the first defendant herein was the plaintiff and the first plaintiff herein, his parents and siblings were defendants 1 to 7. It is claimed that though the suit property was the absolute property of Govindammal, the first plaintiff’s mother, since the litigation was not properly prosecuted with the help of necessary documents, the first plaintiff’s mother suffered a decree for recovery of possession at the hands of the first defendant. However, no actual delivery was taken pursuant to the decree in OS No.1421 of 1981 and possession remained with the present first plaintiff, who was also a defendant in the earlier suit. It was also stated that the suit property served as a pathway to the School run by the first plaintiff by name of “Durai Memorial Nursery and Primary School”.

4. It was further claimed that the suit property was shown as a pathway leading to the School in the correspondence between the first plaintiff and the Authorities, while getting recognition for the School. Claiming that the defendants attempted to obstruct the students from reaching the School, the first plaintiff gave a police complaint on 01.06.2014 and also a petition to the District Collector on 11.06.2014. It is also claimed that the first defendant had filed a Writ Petition in WP No.21509 of 2014 with all untenable averments. Along with the suit certain documents were produced which go to show that an approval has been granted to the School in the year 2002 and the said approval has been renewed subsequently in the years 2003, 2007, 2010 and 2013. Registration copy of the Will said to have been executed by Govindammal dated 17.06.2005 in favour of the first plaintiff was also filed as a document.

5. Upon receipt of the summons, the defendants filed IA No.447 of 2016 seeking to strike out the plaint under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prayer in the Application reads as follows:

“to strike out the entire pleading in the plaint and consequently dismiss the suit.”

In support of the said application the petitioners would aver that the suit property along with other properties were settled on the first defendant by her husband under a registered Settlement Deed dated 06.10.1969. The father of the respondents/plaintiffs viz., Durai Pillai and his family members laid a false claim to an extent of 1,800 sq. ft. of land in Survey No.2629, which forced her to file a suit in OS No.523 of 1977 for declaration of title and injunction. The said suit was decreed after contest. As against the same, an Appeal was preferred in AS No.32 of 1980 by the predecessor in interest of the present first plaintiff. The Appeal was also dismis