The court upheld the plaintiff's right to contest a claim for property ownership based on historical possession, rejecting arguments for plaint rejection.

5.Mrs.Sasirekha ... Respondents Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.04.2024 in IA.No.4 of 2021 in OS.No.252 of 2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Ganesh Kumar

O R D E R

Challenging the dismissal of their application for rejecting the plaint, the defendants 1, 2 and 7 have filed the above civil revision petition.

2. The short facts which have led to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition are hereinbelow set out and the parties are referred to in the same same litigative status as before the Additional District Court at Chengalpattu.

3. The plaintiff had filed the suit OS No.252/2020 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Chengalpattu for declaration of her title to the suit schedule property and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants, their men, agents or servants or anyone claiming through them from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties as also for a declaration of her possessory title and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

4. The plaintiff would submit that originally the suit schedule properties belonged to the joint family of Rangasamy Reddiar. Under a registered partition deed dated 20.10.1959, the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff’s adoptive father Sri Venkatasamy Reddiar. The plaintiff would submit that she has been living with her adoptive parents since she was a 10-month-old baby.

5. The plaintiff would further submit that although her adopted father has executed a registered sale deed allegedly transferring the properties in favour of one D.Muthusamy Mudaliar, father of defendants 1 to 6, however, the sale deed was never acted upon and the possession continued to remain with her adoptive father who was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Venkatasamy Reddiar had also dealt with the properties by selling some of the properties and receiving sale consideration for himself which clearly go to show that the sale deed executed in favour of the Muthusamy Mudaliar was never acted upon. That apart, Venkatasamy Reddiar had executed a Will dated 03.02.1987 bequeathing all his properties in favour of his wife Rukmani Ammal for life and thereafter upon the plaintiff. All of this would clearly indicate that the sale deed dated 10.12.1959 was never acted upon. Venkatasamy Reddiar had died on 19.02.1993, leaving behind surviving the plaintiff and her adoptive mother. The plaintiff’s adoptive mother Rukmani Ammal had executed a registered Will dated 19.11.1996, bequeathing all her properties in favour of the plaintiff. Rukmani Ammal had died on 03.10.2003, leaving behind her surviving the plaintiff as the sole legal heir. Therefore, the plaintiff had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties.

6. While so, the defendants with an intention to make a wrongful gain are trying to assert a right to the suit properties after the demise of Muthusamy Mudaliar on 10.09.2010. During his lifetime, Muthusamy Mudaliar had not staked a claim to the suit properties. Criminal complaints have also been lodged by the plaintiff against the defendants. Further, the defendants have also attempted to mutate the revenue records in their name which was objected to by the plaintiff. The plaintiff would submit that the defendants are taking law into their hands and, therefore, left with no other alternative, she has come forward with the suit in question.

7. The petitioners/defendants 1, 2 and 7, after entering appearance in the suit, have come forward to file the above application to reject the plaint on the ground that the 1st respondent/plaintiff has taken out inconsistent pleas, one based on a Will and the other based on an alleged possessory right. T