The trial Court must examine the plaint's averments to determine if a cause of action exists, rather than rejecting it based solely on the defendant's claims.

ORDER :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

This Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgement and decree in I.A.No.1083 of 2018 in O.S.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur, dated 05.01.2022.

2.Aggrieved over the order of the Court below, in rejecting the plaint, the present Appeal has been filed.

3.The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the Appeal, are stated as under:

The appellant herein is the plaintiff. She moved a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2018 before the II Addl. District Judge, Tiruppur, for the following reliefs, viz.,

“A) To divide the suit properties described hereunder into three equal shares and to allot of one such share to the plaintiff with respect to good and bad soil by metes and bounds by appointing a commissioner;

B) To declared that the alleged settlement deed Document No (3995/1987 dated 30.11.1987) executed by the 1^st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding again the plaintiff;

C) To declared that the alleged settlement deed Document No. 51/1988 dated 11.01.1988 executed by 1^st defendant to in favour of 2 defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

D) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 1930/1998 dated 18.12.1998 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

E) To declared that the settlement deed Document No.3443/2008 dated 11.08.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

F) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 3636/2008 dated 21.08.2008 executed by 2^nd defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

G) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 321/2008 dated 28.01.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 3^rd defendant is null and void and it will not be binding against the plaintiff;

H) To declared that the settlement deed Document No.3433/2011 dated 29.09.2011 executed by 3rd defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

I) To declared that the Rectification deed Document No. 3625/2016 dated 18.07.2016 executed by 3^rd defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

J) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 320/2008 dated 28.01.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

K) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 3434/2011 dated 29/09/2011 executed by plaintiff to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

L) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 1146/1985 dated 14.06.1985 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff.

M) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2552/1985 dated 14.11.1985, executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

N) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2553/1985 dated 14.11.1985 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff.

O) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2443/1987 dated 31.07.1987 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2^nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff.

P) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2217/2013 dated 28.06.2013 executed by 2nd defendant to in favour of the 3rd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;

Q) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2666/1987 dated 21.08.1987 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plainti