J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 14.11.2019 made in O.S.S.R.No.13375/23.10.2019.

2.The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit; he filed a suit for recovering a sum of Rs.41,50,000/- (Rupees Forty One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) from the defendants; the learned trial Judge without admitting the plaint rejected the same on the ground that there is no cause of action against the defendants; the plaintiff has raised allegation against the defendants on the ground that the sale agreement was made in favour of the first defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Only) and later, the plaintiff, at the instructions of the first defendant and in order to facilitate the process of layout, executed a sale deed dated 25.03.2019 in favour of the second defendant, who is the wife of the first defendant; it is claimed that there is still balance sale consideration of Rs.41,50,000/- (Rupees Forty One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) to be paid to the plaintiff and hence, he has filed the suit for recovery of money.

3.The learned trial Judge had chosen to reject the plaint on the threshold itself by observing that the first defendant was not a party to the sale deed and the second defendant was not a party to the sale agreement and when the sale deed was executed and completed, there cannot be any cause of action against the defendants to recover the suit amount, as pleaded; it has been further observed that no oral evidence can be let, in view of the bar under Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act; aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that a judgment on merits of the case has been passed even at the very initial stage of filing; there are lot of factual contents that have to be proved and disproved by the respective parties; the cause of action as alleged by the plaintiff has to be taken for the purpose of taking the case on file, irrespective of the fact whether it is true or not; at the time of filing the suit, the Court is not expected to deal with the merits of the case, if the plaint does not seem to be proper and fit for admission with requisite Court fee and it should be taken as a preliminary issue; he drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, dated 16.07.2021 made in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.915, 943, 967, 991 and

330 of 2020. In the said judgment, it has been held as under:-

“26. Sec.9 of the CPC makes it obligatory for a civil court to take cognizance of a suit of a civil nature unless its jurisdiction is barred either expressly or by necessary implication. There are two parts to it: First there must be a suit of civil nature – a suit where the existence of an enforceable legal right and its violation are alleged; and Second, the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of the same. The former deals with the cause for the action which is presented before the court in a plaint, and the latter concerns with the availability of the inherent jurisdiction in the Court to take cognizance of the cause of action so presented before it.

(a) Cause of action:

It belongs to the plaintiff. The Court/Registry cannot investigate the merit of the cause of action at the stage of numbering the plaint or adequacy of pleadings. It has to merely presume and accept the pleadings as they are at that stage. This is however, subject to one exception: where the allegation in the plaint does not constitute a legally recognised right, then the Court may reject the plaint even at the preliminary stage: To illustrate, if the plaintiff pleads that she was married prior to the date of coming into force of Sec.29-A of the Hindu Succession Act (inserted Vide a Tamil Nadu Amendment which elevated all unmarried daughters as on the date on which the provision became operational as coparceners), a