JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against decree and judgment dated 01.11.2022 in C.S.No.207 of 2021 and Application No.2469 of 2022 in CS.No.207 of 2021.)

Common Judgment:

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

1. Two appeals are filed challenging the common order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Judge in C.S.No.207 of 2021 and A.No.2469 of 2022. While O.S.A.No.310 of 2022 is filed against the decree and judgment in C.S.No.207 of 2021, O.S.A.No.311 of 2022 is challenging the fair and decreetal order in Application No.2469 of 2022 in C.S.No.207 of 2021. By the above order, the learned Judge rejected the suit in C.S.No.207 of 2021 thereby allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) to reject the plaint on the premise that the litigation is vexatious and barred by limitation. The above order rejecting the plaint and the suit, which is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.

2. Before we proceed to examine the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Judge and the submissions made challenging the same, it may be relevant to set out the facts briefly. For ease of reference, we shall refer to the parties in terms of their ranking in the suit in C.S.No.207 of 2021 which is as under:

i. P.S.Usha – Plaintiff

ii. P.S.Surendra (Deceased) - 1st Defendant

iii. P.S.Subramani - 2nd Defendant

iv. P.S.Vijayalakshmi - 3rd Defendant

v. Sharath Kumar Surendra - 4th Defendant (son of the deceased P.S.Surendra, was brought on record as his legal heir)

3. Brief facts:

(a) The suit schedule properties consisting of land and house measuring about 15440 sq.ft, were purchased by one Dhanammal, grandmother of the plaintiff, vide two sale deeds dated 19.10.1941 and 21.01.1943 registered as Document Nos. 2122 of 1941 and 105 of 1943 respectively in the office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, Chennai.

(b) The late Dhanammal and her husband late Mr.P.Subramaniya Udayar had no issues and adopted one Ambigainathan. During the lifetime of Dhanammal, she executed a registered Will dated 06.10.1947 with regard to the immovable properties owned by her. Subsequently, the said Will was cancelled and another registered Will was executed on 24.12.1953 bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the said Ambigainathan, the adopted son of Dhanammal. The said Will dated 24.12.1953 was also cancelled on 09.12.1957 and a settlement deed was executed in favour of the said Ambigainathan (father of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3).

(c) In terms of the settlement deed executed by Dhanammal, the said Ambigainathan was granted life interest i.e., he could enjoy the properties during his lifetime, but did not have the right of alienation. The settlement deed provided that the properties would devolve on P.S.Surendra, son of Ambigainathan, the 1st defendant in the suit, after the life time of Ambigainathan. Ambigainathan had two sons and two daughters viz.,

i) P.S.Surendra - 1st defendant in the Suit (deceased).

ii) P.S.Usha - Daughter/ Plaintiff in the Suit.

iii) P.S.Subramani - Son / 2nd defendant in the Suit.

iv) P.S.Vijayalakshmi - Daughter/ 3rd defendant in the Suit.

v) Sharath Kumar Surendra - 4th defendant in the suit (Son of the deceased first defendant P.S.Surendra)

(d) On the basis of the 1957 settlement deed, Mr.P.S.Surendra (deceased) /1st defendant in the suit sold a portion of land measuring about 7700 sq.ft., to Jain Builders for a sale consideration of Rs.135 Lakhs. The sale deed was stated to be executed after obtaining no objection certificate vide letter dated 22.11.2001 from