In suits for partition, the principles of res judicata and limitation require evidence for claims against the validity of the plaint; partial rejection of plaint is impermissible.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. This revision arises against an order, dated 17.08.2022, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge at Tindivanam in I.A.No.35 of 2020 in O.S.No.49 of 2019.

2. I.A.No.35 of 2020 is an application filed by 12th and 13th defendants seeking rejection of the plaint presented by respondent Nos.1 to3 before me.

3. O.S.No.49 of 2019 is a suit for partition and for declaration that the sale deed, executed by defendant Nos.8 to 11 in favour of 12^th and 13^th defendants, is null and void.

4. Summons were issued in the suit and the same was served on the 12^th defendant, who filed a detailed written statement. The written statement filed by the 12^th defendant was adopted by the 13^th defendant.

5. For the purpose of this revision, I need not travel into the scope of the defence that has been taken by the defendants. This is because, in a proceeding relating to rejection of plaint, being a plea in demurrer, I have to take the averments made in the plaint to be true and on reading the same, if I were to come to a conclusion that the plaint falls within the four corners of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then I will have to reject the same.

6. At the time of consideration of the plea of rejection of plaint, the Court is not concerned with the sterling defence that might be taken by the defendants or whether the suit, if it goes for trial, would end in success for the plaintiff or not. Having stated the principles of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I proceed now to deal with the contentions raised by Mr.R.Thirugnanam, appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

7. According to Mr.R.Thirugnanam, the property originally belonged to one Kannu Naicker, who had four sons and four daughters. The 1^st plaintiff, in this suit, is the 1^st son of Kannu Naicker. According to the 12^th defendant, Kannu Naicker and his two then minor children, namely, Subramani and Panchanathan, sold the property in favour of one Ranganatha Naicker. The said Ranganatha Naicker was in enjoyment of the property from the date of purchase, namely, 29.12.1954. Thereafter, his sons were in possession and occupation of the same. His sons have been impleaded as defendants Nos.8 to 11.

8. On 27.01.1986, the sons of Ranganatha Naicker alienated the property in favour of one Iyyanar, the father of 12^th and 13^th defendants. The 4^th son of Kannu Naicker, namely one Krishnaraj, attempted to disturb the possession of Iyyanar and constrained Iyyanar to file a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam. The said suit was decreed on 29.08.2017. Krishnaraj, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, filed an appeal in A.S.No.2 of 2010 before the District Court at Villupuram. The said appeal was dismissed on 30.08.2019. Challenging the concurrent findings in O.S.No.11 of 2008 and A.S.No.2 of 2010, a Second Appeal was preferred before this Court in S.A.No.199 of2021. The said Second Appeal was dismissed on 17.03.2021.

9. Mr.R.Thirugnanam would further plead that during the course of an enquiry in O.S.No.11 of 2008, Krishnaraj had pleaded that he is representing the interest of all the children of Kannu Naicker.

10. Taking this as a cue, Mr.R.Thirugnanam would submit that the present suit for partition and declaration is barred by the principles of res judicata. He would therefore state that the dismissal of the ap