The court confirmed that a plaint must be accepted as true for determining cause of action and limitation, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

ORDER :

(V. Lakshminarayanan, J.)

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.04.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.290 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Ponneri.)

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Ponneri in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.290 of 2018.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

2. O.S.No.290 of 2018 is a suit filed for

(a) declaration that the sale deed dated 31.03.1920 bearing Document No.1747 of 1920 on the file of SRO, Ponneri as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff;

(b) Declaration declaring that the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1952 passed in C.S.No.57 of 1949 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff as far as item-2 of Part-1 of Schedule-2.

(c) Declaration, declaring that the sale deed dated 07.12.1964 bearing Document No.4992 of 1964 on the file of the Office of the District Registrar, Madras-North as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff;

(d) Declaration declaring that the settlement deed dated 16.07.2001 bearing Document No.1918 of 2001 on the file of SRO., Ponneri as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff;

(e) Declaration declaring that the Sale Deed dated 14.02.2006 bearing Document No.534 of 2006 on the file of SRO., Ponneri as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff;

(f) permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men, servants, agents or any other persons from alienating the schedule mentioned property in any manner either by leasing, mortgaging, alienating etc.

(g) permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men, servants, agents or any other persons from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property in any manner;

3. In this suit, on service of summons, the defendants took out an application to reject the plaint in I.A.No.1 of 2021. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Ponneri by the impugned order, pushing the parties for trial. Against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. I am conscious that I am dealing with an application for rejection of plaint. In such an application, I am bound by the averments made in the plaint and I have to take them to be true. On a reading of the plaint as it stands, if I have to reject the same, I have to come to the conclusion that there is no cause of action for the suit and/or the suit is barred by limitation.

5. On a reading of the plaint, the following facts emerge. There is no dispute that the property belonged to one Prabala Seshachaliah. He executed a 'WILL', whereunder, he appointed his sons-in-law Dodla Sundariah and S.S.Krishnaswamiah as its executors. The property was to be managed by his sons-in-law till his son Prabala Krishnaswamy Iyer attained the age of 22. As per the 'WILL', the property was to devolve on his son, Prabala Krishnaswamy Iyer. Prabala Seshachaliah passed away on 24.11.1903. The 'WILL' dated 22.10.1903 was put up on probate before the Original Side of this Court. In and by way of an order dated 09.05.1904, the probate was granted. This was as per the order in O.P.No.55 of 1904. In the meantime, the plaint avers that Prabala Krishnaswamy Iyer attained the age of 22 years and therefore had taken over the ownership and possession of the property.

6. Between 1904 till 1920, there seems to be no issues. The plaint states that S.S.Krishnaswamiah, without having any right, title or interest over the property, executed a sale deed in favour of three gentlemen viz., Venkatesiah, Sambiah and Ramaiah. Inter se the family of the purchasers, a suit came to be presented before this Court in C.S.No.57 of 1949. The said suit was decr