A plaint cannot be rejected based solely on a defendant's application when disputed facts exist; the cause of action must be assessed based on the plaint and its documents.

JUDGMENT :

Challenging the Order of the trial Court in rejecting the plaint, the present Appeal came to be filed.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.301 of 2018 for the following reliefs :

i. To declare the plaintiffs' title and for consequential relief of to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule mentioned property.

ii. To declare the partition deed dated 10.09.1988 which was registered on 10.10.1998 as document No.1285 of 1988 which was done between t he defendants' father Thiru Adhiappa Reddiar and Thiru Narasa Reddiar in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property which is falled in 'A' schedule mentioned properties of Thiru Adhiappa Reddiar as null and void;

iii. To declare the partition deed dated 17.07.2000 which was registered on 28.08.2000 as document No.1091 of 2000 which was done between the defendants' father Thiru Adhiappa Reddiar and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property which fell in 'C' schedule of the first defendant as null and void;

iv. To directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit and to pass other suitable relief or reliefs;

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :

An extent of 3 acres in Survey No.189/1 has been owned by one Saravana Pillai and Nataraja Pillai which was purchased by one Parvathiammal vide sale deed dated 17.01.1963 and and she has settled the property in favour of the plaintiffs 17 and 18 on 15.06.1978. However, the defendants while dividing the property on 21.04.1994, instead of survey No.189/1, survey No.188/1 has been wrongly mentioned at the instance of one Srinivasa Pillai. Later the defendants have partitioned the property including the plaintiff's property in survey No.188/1. Hence, the plaintiff has sought declaration and also cancellation of consequent documents.

4. An application has been taken out by the defendants to reject the plaint on the ground that the property in survey No.189/1 is the ancestral property of the defendants and the property was originally partitioned between Athiyappa Reddiar and Narasa Reddiar and the suit property has been allotted to Athiyappa Reddiar and patta has also been given in their name. That apart a suit in O.S.No.265 of 2004 has been filed by the first defendant against one Srinivasa Masthri and plaintiffs 12 to 15. Therefore, sought to reject the plaint.

5. The trial Court considering the submissions on either side, holding that partition has been taken place more than 30 years back and hence, presumption can be drawn against plaintiffs and the fact that there was an earlier suit filed by the first defendant against one Srinivasa Mesthri and the plaintiffs 12 to 15, rejected the plaint.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused entire materials available on record.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the documents of the year 1963 and 1978 clearly show that the ancestors of the plaintiff had purchased the suit property. Since the said survey was wrongly mentioned in a partition deed entered between the family members of the defendants, the same has been taken advantage and they included that survey number in the partition deed executed between the family members of the defendants. Therefore, submitted that these are matter of evidence and the same has to be decided only in the suit.

8. Whereas, the leaned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the earlier suit in O.S.No.265 of 2004 filed for declaration and injunction has been decreed exparte in favour of the first defendant and others and the defendants themselves admitted that the survey No.188/1 mentioned in their partition deed do not belong to their family. Now it is too late to seek declaration of title and also to cancel the documents which have been executed thirty years back.

9. In the light of the above submissions, the point that arise for consideration is Whether