The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected if it appears to be barred by any law, including the law of limitation, as per Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India To set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.12.2019 made in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.358 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Erode.)

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Trial Court refusing to reject the plaint Or.VII R.11 of C.P.C.

2. According to the petitioner/defendant, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and without cause of action. Hence it shall be rejected under Or.VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C

3. The plaintiff have filed the above suit in O.S.No.358 of 2018 to declare the sale deed dated 07.11.2003 as null and void, mandatory injunction to demolish the structure and hand over possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing the building.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2-4, namely Jeganathan borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the 2nd defendant in the suit and handed over title deed to him during December 2000, for discharge of one mortgage to a third party. Even before that the said Jeganathan mortgaged the property to third party. The said Jeganathan paid interest at the rate of Rs.3/- per hundred per month. He remitted interest upto 2002, and after that he was unable to pay due to some personal problems. Since Jeganathan was not well his son-in-law one Manickam discharged the debt, but the 2nd defendant has not issued any receipt for payment. After recovering from illness, Jeganathan insisted on return of the document, which was refused by the second defendant. During 2003, the 2nd defendant had taken all the plaintiffs to his house and forcefully obtained signature in the last page of a type written document, despite the resistance of the plaintiffs. On the same day after sometime, a person came and the 2nd defendant asked him to get signature in book, which he obtained by force. Jeganathan was not there, when plaintiffs signed the document, but returned home in the evening, exhausted with signs of contusion on his face. On enquiry, he informed that he was beaten up by 2nd defendant and his signature were obtained by force by detaining him in a room. Thereafter the said Jeganathan fell sick, left home and was informed that his dead body was found on the banks of Cauvery rivers. Due to fear the plaintiffs have not lodged any complaints.

5. In the property, which was obtained through a document by force, tenants were residing. The first plaintiffs asked the tenants not to vacate, whereas the 2nd defendant threatened them to vacate. In the year 2008, the 2nd defendant forcibly entered into the premises and locked the door. Even after the death of Jeganathan, plaintiffs were enjoying the property till October 2015. The first plaintiff approached the Police officials but she was driven out and unable to do anything. She could not trace the document from the concerned office due to the influence of the 2nd defendant. On 06.04.2015, she got the certified copy, which she read and understood the contents in the month of May 2018 that her husband alleged to have sold the property on 07.11.2003. There was neither debt and nor necessity for her husband Jeganathan to sell the property. Their daughters were married by that time. The recitals in the document falsely state that title deed and mortgage deed were handed over, but infact no such mortgage deed was handed over.

6. After reading the document it was disclosed that the plaintiff and her son-in-law have signed as attestors. The second defendant has never signed the document and they were not aware of the said document they were not aware of the document writer also. Hence it is a bogus and forged document and without any consideration from first defendant. In the first week of May, 2018, when the first plaintiff was informed by her relative that the first defendant demolished the building and con