ORDER :

1. The 1st defendant in the suit O.S.No.119 of 2010 is the revision petitioner before this Court. He has challenged the dismissal of an application filed by him invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint in O.S.No.119 of 2010.

2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner herein, it is necessary to set out the following dates and events:-

“CHRONOLOGY OF DATES AND EVENTS

S.No. DATE EVENTS

1 18.12.1982

The paternal grandfather of the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent, one Ramasamy Naidu executes a settlement deed in their favour retaining a life interest for himself.

2 21.08.1995

Ramasamy Naidu unilaterally cancels the settlement deed

stating that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have not complied with the terms of settlement.

3 05.09.1995

The revision petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent, who were minors then, had instituted the suit O.S.No.652 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, which was later transferred to the District Munsif Court, Palani and numbered as O.S.No.222 of 1996 and once again transferred to the Sub Court, Palani and numbered as O.S.No.160 of 1998 to declare the cancellation of the settlement deed as null and void and for permanent injunction. They were represented by his father as natural guardian.

4 16.11.1998

One V.Kalimuthu obtains a money decree against Ramasamy Naidu in O.S.No.235 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani.

5 2000

The decree holder, V.Kalimuthu, files E.P.No.3 of 2000 to

execute the decree by bringing the property settled on the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for sale.

6 19.09.2001

O.S.No.160 of 1998 is dismissed and A.S.No.231 of 2001 is filed by the petitioner herein before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul.

7 25.11.2002

Auction sale is held in E.P.No.3 of 2000 and on the very same day, the sale was also confirmed in favour of the respondents herein.

8 2004

E.P.No.88 of 2004 is filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking delivery of the property. E.A.No.300 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, obstructing the

delivery.

9 12.08.2005

A.S.No.231 of 2001 is allowed and the decree and judgment in O.S.No.160 of 1998 is set aside. The title of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is declared and

permanent injunction was also granted in his favour.

10 2006

The sons and daughter of Ramasamy Naidu filed S.A.

(MD) No.348 of 2006, challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.231 of 2001 (The property has already been sold in Court auction.)

11 13.06.2008

E.A.No.300 of 2004 is dismissed by the Executing Court totally overlooking the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 231 of 2001.

12 2008 A.S.No.99 of 2008 was filed against the dismissal of the

obstruction petition by the Executing Court and I.A.No.

114 of 2008 was filed to stay of all further proceeding in

execution.

13

29.09.2008 I.A.No.114 of 2008 is allowed.

14 29.04.2010

The instant suit O.S.No.119 of 2010 is filed by the 1st respondent herein for bare injunction.

15 14.06.2010

A.S.No.99 of 2008 is allowed upholding the claim of the

revision petitioner.

16 09.07.2018

S.A.(MD) No.348 of 2006 is dismissed for default.

3. From the above chronology of events, it appears that the title of the revision petitioner and his brother had been declared by a competent civil Court and injunction has been granted in their favour. The second appeal, which is filed challenging the judgment in A.S.No.231 of 2001, has been dismissed for default. It is now informed that an application has been moved for restoring the same with a delay.

4. In this backdrop, the 1st respondent herein has filed a suit seeking the following reliefs:-

“jhth gpuhJ nrhj;ij thjp ePjpkd;wk; %yk; Vyk; vLj;j gpwF jhth gpuhJ nrhj;jpy;; gpujpthjpfs; fl;bl mikg;Gfis ,bf;fNth khw;wNth kw;Wk; Gjpjhf fl;blk; fl;lNth $lhJ vd epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis gupfhuk; toq;fpAk;.”

5. The 1st respondent has narrated the filing of the suit O.S.No.