The cause of action in a suit for injunction against a deceased party survives and is heritable, and the decree is executable against the legal representatives.

ORDER :

[Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.737 of 2019 in O.S.No.63 of 2011, by the District Munsif, Madurantakam and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.]

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 01.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.737 of 2019 in O.S.No.63 of 2011, by the District Munsif, Madurantakam.

2. The parties are referred to as their ranks in the suit. O.S.No.63 of 2011, was filed for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the schedule mentioned property. The original owner of the property was one Natarajan Aiyakar. Natarajan Aiyakar had purchased the property by way of a registered document in document No.2208 of 1986. The Vendors are the defendants. The said Natarajan Aiyakar divided the property into ten plots. He had settled plot No.6 in favour of the plaintiff by way of a registered settlement deed in document No.1124 of 2002 dated 12.07.2002. The plaintiff will allege that the document was accepted and acted upon and had come into force.

3. He would plead that the defendants, who have no manner of right, title or interest over the property, attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. This was in and around January 2011. They had attempted to block the access of road to the suit property. As the defendants were attempting to trespass into the property, he was constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction.

4. A reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has not only claimed his right on the basis of possession but traces his title, by way of a settlement deed which was preceded by a sale deed. In other words, it is not a simple suit for injunction based on possession but the plaintiff claims title to the property.

5. The suit has been pending for over 12 years. In the meanwhile, the first defendant Laxmiammal died and the Civil Revision Petitioner was impleaded as the fourth defendant. It is pertinent to point out that at the time of filing an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, the 4th defendant had not objected to the same. It was only on the basis of that fact, the 4th defendant was impleaded as a party to the suit.

6. Having come on record sometime in the year 2016, the 4th defendant filed an application for rejection of plaint in I.A.No.737 of 2019. Two grounds were taken by the defendant.

7. According to the 4th defendant, since Laxmiaamal had died, there is no cause of action against her. It is also pleaded that since the suit is for a bare injunction, the cause of action which originally arose does not continue with the defendants and therefore, the suit deserves to be rejected. The defendant would further allege that since no pleading has been made as against the 4th defendant, subsequent to the filing of the amended plaint, the plaint has to be rejected.

8. I heard Mr. S. Vasudevan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Venkatesh Mohan Raj, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. I have perused the case papers and have heard the arguments on the either side.

9. Taking the second argument first, I have to state that lack of pleadings can never be a ground for rejection of plaint. As understood, a rejection of plaint should fall within the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11 and if it does not fall so, the application deserves dismissal.

10. The Learned Trial Judge has rightly appreciated the point and has dismissed the application for rejection of plaint, insofar as the plea that there is lack of pleading.

11. Insofar as the first point is concerned, it is very interesting. According to Mr. Vasudevan, the suit being one for bare injunction, on the death of the first defendant, the cause of action vanishes. The argument is the right that is claimed is a personal right and not one in rem and on the death of the first defendant the cause o