IMPORTANT POINT
The Court can reject a plaint if it fails to disclose a cause of action, but the absence of cause of action for the suit is not a ground for rejection.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners herein/defendant Nos.1 to 3, challenging the order, dated 19.10.2023, passed in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023, by the learned Principal District Judge, at Narayanpet, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners herein/defendant Nos.1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11(a)&(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint, was dismissed by the Court below.

2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.1 of 2023 on the file of Principal District Judge, at Narayanpet, seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff No.2 claims to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts equivalent to 0.10 Hectares in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town, under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1984 bearing document No.648/1984. Plaintiff No.3 claims to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.10 Gts equivalent to 0.10 Hectares in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town, under a registered Sale deed dated 14.05.1984 bearing document No.632/1984. Smt.G.Anasuya, wife of plaintiff No.1 claims to have purchased Plot No.3 admeasuring 300 Sq.yds in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal town, under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1984 bearing document No.1019/1984. Smt.G.Anasuya also claims to have purchased Plot No.2 admeasuring 150 Sq.yds land in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town, under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1984 vide document No.1020/1984. It is stated that Smt.G.Anasuya expired on 24.12.2019 leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 as her legal heirs and the plaintiffs succeeded the properties acquired by late Smt G.Anasuya and are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that while the things stood thus, one Smt.Parvathamma and her sons namely Laxmikantha Reddy, Madhusudan Reddy, Virat Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy claiming to be legal heirs of Nagi Reddy, started interfering with the possession of plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs had claimed land admeasuring Ac.0.26 Gts in Sy.No.4 as that of land admeasuring Ac.0.24 Gts in Sy.No.280. It is further case of plaintiffs that pursuant to the said rival claims, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed a case before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet requesting to initiate proceedings under Sec.145 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) against the plaintiffs as well as legal heirs of Nagi Reddy namely Smt.Parvathamma Madhusudhan Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy and in view of apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance to the public tranquillity in the village, the property was taken into the custody with the standing crops as required under Sec 146(1) of Cr.P.C and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal, was appointed as "Receiver". Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, having been satisfied that the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C are no longer required, passed an order dated 20.10.1990 revoking the earlier proceedings No.C/487/87 dated 21.03.1987. In view of the same, the M.R.O, Makthal vide Memo No.A/2783/90 dated 24.01.1991 delivered possession of land admeasuring Ac.0-24gts in Sy.No.280 to the plaintiff No.1. It is further case of the plaintiffs that inspite of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, the legal heirs of Nagi Reddy namely Parvathamma, Laxmikantha Reddy Virat Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy again started interfering with the possession of plaintiffs, which compelled the plaintiffs to file a suit vide O.S.No.29 of 1991 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Narayanpet. After contest, the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2005 upholding the right, title and possessio