JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.10.2017 made in I.A.No. 65 of 2017 in O.S.No. 1201 of 2013 on the file of the II -Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.02.2018 made in I.A.No. 1049 of 2015 in O.S.No. 1199 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No. 1833 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.)

Common Judgment

1. The defendants in O.S.No. 1201 of 2013 on the file of the II -Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, O.S.No. 1199 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore (now re-numbered as O.S.No. 366 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai) and the first defendant in O.S.No. 1833 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Coimbatore are the petitioners in all these three revisions.

2. Since the parties to these proceedings are related to each other and the reliefs sought for as well as the facts leading to these revisions are similar, these three revision petitions are taken up together for disposal. While the first two revisions namely, C.R.P.Nos. 718 and 2289 of 2018 are challenging the orders of the Trial Court made in I.A.No. 65 of 2017 and 1049 of 2015 respectively filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., seeking rejection of the plaints. The third revision namely, C.R.P.No. 3018 of 2018 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to strike out the plaint in O.S.No. 1833 of 2017. The main ground on which the plaints are sought to be rejected is that the suits as framed are not maintainable.

3. The prayer in each of the suits reads as follows:-

3.1. O.S.No. 1201 of 2013

“i) of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit property.

ii) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the cost of this suit.

iii) grant such further or other reliefs as may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3.2. O.S.No. 1199 of 2013 (now renumbered as O.S.No. 366 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai)

“i) of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule properties.

ii) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the cost of this suit.

iii) grant such further or other relief as may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3.3. O.S.No. 1833 of 2017

“i) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agent, servant, partisan or any person claiming through or under them from altering, changing or modifying in any manner whatsoever the physical features of the property morefully set out and described in the schedule hereunder.

ii) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agent, servant, partisan or any person claiming through or under them from alienating or encumbering any manner whatsoever any specific or earmarked extent of land out of the property morefully set out and described in the schedule hereunder.

iii) directing the defendants to pay the cost of this suit to the plaintiffs.

iv) Pass such and other order as may be deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

4. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 1201 of 2013 is the husband of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 1833 of 2017 and 1199 of 2013. The first defendant in all the suits is the petitioner herein.

5. The earliest suit namely, O.S.No. 1833 of 2017 came to be filed for the reliefs as stated above claiming that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff, the first defendant and one Girija by virtue of purchase und