The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the relevance of previous suits, and the issue of limitation as a mixed question of fact and law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, praying to reject the plaint against applicant / 1st defendant in C.S.No.60 of 2023.)

1. This Application has been filed by the applicant / 1st defendant to grant an order to reject the plaint in C.S.No.60 of 2023.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the applicant, respondents 1, 8, 11, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 15 to 17 and perused the materials available on record.

Application in brief:-

3. The applicant is the 1st defendant; the 1st respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the reliefs for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff along with the consequential injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from fabricating or registering the documents in respect of the suit schedule property.

Submissions of the applicant:-

4. The learned counsel for the applicant / 1st defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable; it is averred in the plaint that during the second week of February 2017, some 40 persons trespassed into the suit property and forcibly removed the tin sheets and demolished the compound wall by claiming ownership; though it is stated that there is a denial of ownership in the year 2017 itself the 1st respondent / plaintiff has not filed any suit for declaration of his title but he had filed a suit in O.S.No.1409 of 2017 before the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction; even though the plaint averments would state that there was a cause of action for protecting the possession and title in the year 2017 itself, the relief of declaration was not sought in the earlier suit filed between the parties, the plaintiff neither reserved his right to file a suit for declaration any time later by seeking leave under Order II, Rule 2 CPC; the plaintiff''s suit on the basis of his own pleadings is barred by limitation; the plaintiff has also alleged that he had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.7211 of 2021 by challenging the cancellation of patta and the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 27.08.2021 by directing the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their title and hence the suit is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. In support of his above submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following judgments:-

(i)Virgo Industries (Eng.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Venturetech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.reported in (2013) 1 SCC 625

(ii) N. Ravindran vs. V.Ramachandranreported in 2011 (3) CTC 153

(iii)N. Ramachandran vs. E. Varadarajanreported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 533

Submissions of the 1st respondent:-

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff has filed the counter and submitted that the plaintiff did not suppress anything in the present suit or in the earlier suit, for the mere denial of title by someone the 1st respondent / plaintiff need not file a suit for declaration; since the applicant / 1st defendant had tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property by disturbing his possession, he has rightly exercised his right by way of filing a Civil Suit for saving his possession; since there was no serious threat to his title at the earlier point of time, the 1st respondent / plaintiff did not choose to file any suit for declaration and no occasion had arisen to seek any leave under Order II, Rule 2 CPC; only when the applicant / 1st defendant had managed to cancel the patta in the name of the 1st respondent / plaintiff he immediately filed a Writ Petition by challenging the order of cancellation of patta; while disposing the Writ Petition, this Court has granted liberty for both the parties to file a suit for declaration of their title; the applicant / 1st defendant has also filed a suit in O.S.No.5930 of 2022 but however he did not choose to seek any relief of declar