A plaint cannot be rejected for lack of cause of action without thorough consideration of accompanying documents and evidence as the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.

JUDGMENT

The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in A.S. No. 22 of 2021 dated 29.07.2022, which reversed the fair and decretal order in I.A. No. 386 of 2020 in O.S. No. 178 of 2017 dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

3. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 178 of

2017. They are challenging the impugned order passed by the first appellate court (II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chidambaram) in A.S. No. 22 of 2021, which reversed the fair and decretal order passed in I.A. No. 386 of 2020 in O.S. No. 178 of 2017. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit.

4. Brief Facts of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 178 of 2017 before the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram, against seven defendants, seeking a declaration of their right and title over the suit property as described in the plaint schedule in R.S. No. 6/3, measuring 1 acre and 67 cents in Old Survey No. 1A/22 of Parangipettai Village, Chidambaram, along with a permanent injunction or, alternatively, recovery of possession. Upon receiving summons, defendants 1 to 6 appeared through counsel, while the 7th defendant (the Sub-Registrar) remained ex parte. Subsequently, defendants 1 to 6 filed I.A. No. 386 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which was contested by the plaintiffs by filing their counter. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge allowed the application, holding that the cause of action was not properly described and that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation.

Consequently, the plaint was rejected.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs filed A.S. No. 22 of 2021 before the II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram. The first appellate court, after hearing both sides, held that the grounds for rejection of the plaint were not sustainable in law. The appellate Judge observed that the rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation was improper since limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without proper material evidence. The trial court’s rejection of the plaint was thus found to be illegal and was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

6. Challenging the said reversal, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal and raised the following grounds:

i. The first appellate court failed to see that the plaint filed by respondents

1 and 2 in O.S. No. 178 of 2017, along with the documents filed, did not disclose any cause of action.

ii. The lower appellate court ought to have seen that the documents filed along with the plaint do not indicate that the land in Old Survey No. 1A/22 corresponds to the present Resurvey No. 6/3.

iii. The appellate court below should have appreciated that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it is incumbent upon the court to reject it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

iv. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 178 of 2017 are land grabbers, and the appellate court ought to have rejected the suit filed by such persons.

v. The lower appellate court failed to see that the suit in O.S. No. 178 of

2017 sought inconsistent and mutually destructive reliefs—declaration of title, permanent injunction, and, alternatively, recovery of possession—which cannot constitute a valid cause of action.

vi. The first appellate court failed to see that the absence of cause of action cannot be camouflaged by clever and cunning drafting. A meaningful reading of the plaint in its entirety fails to disclose any cause of action.

vii. The additional district court failed to see that the suit in O.S. No. 178 of 2017 was barred by limitation.

viii. The appellate court below failed to observe that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, as there was no averment regarding how and when the pla