The plaintiff can seek declaration that transactions affecting property are non-binding on them without the need for cancellation, if they are not a party to the relevant deeds.

ORDER :

R. Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated January 23, 2023 passed by 'the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur' ['Trial Court' for short] in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.233 of 2022, the Petitioner therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the first Defendant and the Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the Original Suit in O.S.No.233 of 2022 on the file of the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Property was owned by one Muthusamy vide Sale Deed dated January 26, 1972. He married one Nagammal as his first wife through whom the second Defendant namely Sivaramakrishnan was born. Muthusamy during his lifetime married one Tara Devi as his second wife, through whom, no child was born.

3.1. The Plaintiff and the first Defendant are the biological son and daughter of one Babu Naidu and Rajeswari. Said Tara Devi's sister - Renugadevi adopted the Plaintiff while Tara Devi adopted the first defendant, both by way of customary adoption.

3.2. During his lifetime, Muthusamy executed a registered Will dated June 9, 1993 and thereby created a life estate in favour of his second wife - Tara Devi and leaving vested remainder to the Plaintiff and the first Defendant. Hence, after the demise of Tara Devi, the Plaintiff and the first Defendant are entitled equal share.

3.3. In these circumstances, the first Defendant falsely obtained a Legal Heirship Certificate and got Release Deed dated June 14, 2013 from Tara Devi. Further, The first Defendant along with her children executed Sale Deeds dated June 17, 2016 and March 12, 2020 in favour of the Defendants 5 and 6 and thereby, sold the entire Suit Property. According to the Plaintiff, Tara Devi has no right to execute the said Release Deed in favour of the first Defendant. Further, the first Defendant and her children have no right to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Defendants 5 and 6. The Sale Deed would not bind the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the Original Suit for partition, declaration that the first defendant is not a daughter of deceased - Muthusamy, and declaration that the Release Deed and Sale Deeds are null and void.

4. The First Defendant entered appearance through his Counsel and filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for short) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit property was owned by one Muthusamy by virtue of a Sale Deed dated January 26, 1972. Muthusamy passed away intestate, leaving behind his wife, Tara Devi, and the first Defendant as his legal heirs. Tara Devi executed a Release Deed in favour of the first Defendant and mutation of revenue records was also effected. The first Defendant along with her children executed Sale Deeds dated June 17, 2016 and March 12, 2020 in favour of the Defendants 5 and 6 and thereby, sold the entire Suit Property. Hence, the suit property is now not available for partition. Further, the Suit is not properly valued and the Court Fee paid is incorrect. Therefore, the Suit is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the first Defendant prayed for rejection of the plaint.

5. The Plaintiff as Respondent in that Application filed a counter reiterating the plaint averments. In addition it was stated that the plaintiff is not a party to Release Deed and the Sale Deeds and hence, the same will not bind the plaintiff and they n