JUDGMENT :

Mr. S. Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel on record for sole appellant in the captioned second appeal is before this Virtual Court i.e., a web hearing on a videoconferencing platform.

2. Captioned second appeal, which is under Section 100 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for the sake of brevity) has been preferred against a judgment and decree dated 19.11.2020 made by the 'II Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Erode' (hereinafter 'first Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity) wherein the first Appellate Court interfered with and reversed a judgment and decree dated 31.10.2014 made in O.S.No.14 of 2013 on the file of First Additional District Munsif Court, Erode (hereinafter 'trial Court' for the sake of brevity).

3. Suit property is land admeasuring 1.5 acres or thereabouts, which originally belonged to one Sengoda Gounder (father of defendants 1 and 2 before the trial Court). It is the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court that suit property was purchased in and by a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1994, which was marked as Ex.A1 before the trial Court. The description of the suit property in the plaint itself says that the re-survey numbers of the suit property has been wrongly given as 122/3, 122/10 and 122/11 in Ex.A1 sale deed whereas it is actually 122/4, 122/11 and 122/12. These are re-survey numbers in Gangapuram village in Erode Taluk situate within Perundurai sub-registration district and Erode registration district. To be noted, there is no dispute about the boundaries. The suit property as described in the plaint is as follows:

'OTHER LANGUAGE'

4. Before the trial Court, defendants completed pleadings by filing a written statement dated 30.07.2013 and an additional written statement, which was filed in February of 2014. Post completion of pleadings, issues were framed and parties went to trial. Sole plaintiff examined himself as PW1. On plaintiff's side 5 exhibits, namely Exs.A1 to A5 were marked of which a certificate issued by the jurisdictional 'Village Administrative Officer' ('VAO' for the sake of brevity) dated 13.09.2012 marked as Ex.A3 is of significance. It is also important to note that this (Ex.A3) and other exhibits were marked without any objection. More importantly, the defendants neither let in oral evidence nor marked any document before the trial Court.

5. After full contest, trial Court passed an interesting judgment and decree dated 31.10.2014. This Court is inclined to describe it as interesting, as the three issues framed are as follows:

'OTHER LANGUAGE'

6. While answering Issue No.2 which pertains to whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and consequential injunction as prayer for, the trial Court observed that there is no cause of action for the suit and therefore, the plaint is hit by Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. To be noted, this is wrongly mentioned as Order VII Rule 11(i)(a) in the trial Court judgment. It is obviously Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC and this Court takes it as an inadvertent typographical / secretarial error and deems it appropriate to leave it at that. In other words, trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC kicks in. If this be the case, one has to go by uncontroverted averments in the plaint without adding or subtracting or looking into evidence before the trial Court. The trial court after holding that said plaint does not disclose a cause of action within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC has (a) looked into oral and documentary evidence before it and (b) ultimately dismissed the suit (not rejected the plaint). This is the reason why this Court is inclined to describe it as interesting. Relevant portion of the trial Court judgment while answering Issue No.2 reads as follows:

OTHER LANGUAGE

“No cause of action accrues to a plaintiff until there is some infringement. The plaintiff therefore has to allege and prove hostility on the part of the defendant