ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 35th defendant in O.S. No. 7 of 2008, now pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu, questioning the order dated 03.07.2018 dismissing I.A. No. 2019, which Interlocutory Application had been filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 7 of 2008.

2. O.S. No. 7 of 2008 had been filed by the plaintiffs seeking a judgment and decree to declare that 13 Cancellation Deeds all dated 06.05.1998 bearing document nos. 996 to 1008 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Thiruporur, Chengalpattu District, as null and void under section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, or to declare that the Compromise Decree in O.S. No. 209 of 2004 dated 10.02.2005 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

3. The suit schedule property had been described as Agricultural lands measuring an extent of 40 acres comprised in Old Survey No. 41/3, and as per Patta No. 238, New Survey No. 41/4A to 41/4M, in Karunkuzhipallam Village, Kanchipuram District.

4. The suit was originally filed by 5 plaintiffs against 36 defendants. As years passed, the 37th to 60th defendants came to be impleaded.

5. After about a decade of the pendency of the suit, without any effective progress, the 35th defendant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that, out of the 40 acres mentioned as the suit property, he is in possession of 22.86 acres on the strength of a Sale Deed dated 26.03.2008 by the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, pursuant to a decree dated 06.11.2007 in his favour in O.S. No. 488 of 2007, which suit had been filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 06.11.2006, and also on the ground that therefore the title of the plaintiffs is clouded, and a suit filed without seeking declaration of title will not lie, and further that there was no cause of action for instituting the suit. During arguments before this Court, it was also stressed that the suit was barred by the law of Limitation.

6. That application came to be dismissed, as aforesaid, by order dated 03.07.2019, with the Learned Sub Judge primarily holding that the facts in the case revealed that the issue of limitation is merged with facts and law and opportunity must be given to the plaintiffs to establish their claim. Questioning the reasons, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. T.M. Hariharan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/35th defendant and Mr. V. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the 1st to 5th respondents/plaintiffs.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as plaintiffs and defendants.

9. Mr. T.M. Hariharan took the Court through the averments in the plaint. He pointed out the trace of title as claimed by the plaintiffs. They claimed title on the strength of 13 Sale Deeds executed by the 1st and 3rd to 11th defendants dated alternatively 03.03.1997 and 24.03.1997 conveying in all 40 acres of agricultural land in Survey No. 41/3, Karunguzhipallam Village in Chengalpattu Taluk. The said defendants were the male heirs of one Kapali Pillai, who had purchased the lands from one V. Kunnappa Naicker, by sale deed dated 29.06.1936. The said 40 acres was part of a larger extent of land measuring 247.16 acres in a revenue auction. Revenue auction of the lands were resorted to since, the earlier purchaser G. Sirur, who himself had purchased the lands in an auction held by the Official Assignee had failed to pay the Government dues. The Official Assignee had brought the lands to auction owing to insolvency of the original owner, V. Subburaya Kottadiar.

10. After tracing the title thus, Mr. T.M. Hariharan then pointed out that the vendors of the plaintiffs, namely t