Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 where averments reveal suppression of material facts, lack of locus standi, and clear limitation bar after 40-year delay, even considering only plaint; prevents abuse of process and protects bona fide titles.

ORDER :

1. Challenging the impugned order passed in IA.No.3 of 2025 in OS.No.29 of 2025 passed by the Additional District Judge at Chengalpattu, the Revision Petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial court, the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed a suit praying for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deeds dated 19.04.1988 executed by defendants 4 to 6 along with Late Nithyanantham in favour of Rajeshwari, Sree Latha and Sreedevi as null and void, to declare the release deed dated 16.12.1992 executed by Sree Latha Sanjay in favour of A. Sreedevi as null and void and also to declare the sale deed dated 17.12.1992 executed by Sree Latha Sanjay in favour of A. Sreedevi as null and void in respect of suit survey No.1/1B situated at Sholinganallur Village and Taluk, Chennai District, (formerly Kanchipuram District) measuring an extent of 2.70 acres or 270 cents with four boundaries as described in the suit schedule. They have also claimed the relief of partition praying to divide the suit subject matter into 5 equal shares and to allot 1/5^th share to each of the plaintiffs. On receipt of summons, the defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C. praying to reject the plaint in O.S.No.29 of 2025. On hearing both sides, the trial judge had dismissed the said application holding that the averments in the plaint alone had to be taken into consideration and not based on the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement and the question of falsity and truthfulness of the allegation made in the plaint can be considered only at the time of trial. Accordingly, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. was rejected. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioners have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-

The case of the plaintiffs is that as per the Genealogy annexed with the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed themselves as legal heirs of one late M.C. Chandrasekaran. The defendants 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are the legal heirs of one M.C. Chandrasekaran, M.C. Deivayani Ammal and M.C. Jagadeeswari, who are brothers and sisters of M.C. Chandrasekaran. The plaintiffs contended that the said M.C. Chandrasekaran is one of the son of late M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar, who died on 14.05.1961 leaving behind his son and daughter as per the Genealogy tree. His wife Karpagambal died in the year 1978. Later on 29.05.1995 M.C. Chandrasekaran also died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his class-1 legal heirs. M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar, father of M.C. Chandrasekaran possessed large extent of land measuring 206.61 acres in different survey numbers at Sholinganallur village through registered sale deed dated 28.04.1943. Eversince the date of purchase, M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar was in absolute possession of the property as a lawful owner. Patta No.207 stood in the name of Sambanda Mudaliar for the lands purchased by him. M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar along with his 3 sons viz., M.C. Chockalinga Mualiar, M.C. Chandrasekaran Mudaliar, and M.C.Nithyananda Mudaliar constituted a Hindu undivided joint family. On 24.03.1960, M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar executed a Release deed, based on that, his three sons, each are entitled for 49 acres. Out of 206.61 acres of land, t