A plaint cannot be rejected for lack of cause of action without allowing evidence to be presented; such determinations must occur during trial.

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit had been filed to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 20.09.2023 passed in I.A.No.11 of 2023 in O.S.No.66 of 2022 by the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

2.1. The Plaintiff is the son of Vinodha. Vinodha is the wife of Nanjundappa. Nanjundappa is the son of Venkataswamy. Venkataswamy is the son of Sonnappa. As per the plaint averments, Sonnappa had three sons by name Chinnappa, Venkataswamy and Goopalliyappa and as per oral family arrangement between Sonnappa sons 1/4th share of 13.36 acres i.e., 3 acres and 34 cents and certain other properties fell to the share of Venkataswamy and his brothers Chinnappa and Goopalliyappa. The said Venkataswamy's children Nanjundappa, Gowramma and Narayanappa were in possession and enjoyment of 3 acres 34 cents in Survey No.345. The Plaintiff is the grandson of Venkataswamy through his son Nanjundappa. The Plaintiff's paternal grandfather Venkataswamy had obtained a mortgage loan of Rs.600/- from one Thimmaiah Setty by mortgaging his share of properties inclusive of 1/4th extent in Survey No.345 as per the mortgage deed bearing Doc. No.1335/1961, dated 20.04.1961. During the life time of said Venkataswamy, he had orally gifted an extent of 1.91 acres out of 3.34 acres in Survey No.345 to his daughter-in-law N.Vinodha and the remaining extent of 3/4^th i.e., 1 acre and 44 cents orally divided among his two sons viz., Nanjundappa and Narayanappa.

2.2. It is the claim of the Plaintiff that Venkatasamappa's son Muniyappa had sold his share of properties that fell to his share in the partition deed dated 05.02.1959 to one Thippa Reddy as per sale deed dated 04.01.1960. Thippa Reddy sold it to Ramakka as per sale deed dated 26.07.1962. Muniyappa had got right and title only to an extent of 3.34 acres to his share, as per the registered partition deed in Survey No.345 i.e. 1/4^th share of 13.36 acres but without any basis, right and title, he had illegally conveyed an extent of 5.20 acres in Survey No.345 and executed sale deed dated 04.01.1960 in excess of his right. Subsequently, the said Thippa Reddy also executed sale deed dated 26.07.1962 mentioning the same extent of 5.20 acres as per the previous Sale Deed without physically verifying the exact extent available on ground. Therefore, the above said two sale deeds dated 04.01.1960 and 26.07.1962 are invalid in respect of the extent in excess of 3.34 acres in Survey No.345. It is the further submission of the Plaintiff that after some years of purchase of property by Ramakka herself and her husband Jogi Chinnasamy had passed away leaving behind them, Jogi Chinnaswamy's second wife's children – Gurrappa, Venkataswamy, Ramasamy, Muniyappa, Goopalliyappa, Gurramma and Yellamma who are the Defendants 1, 6 to 9, 15 and 16 in the suit as their legal heirs to succeed to their estates. The said Ramakka and Jogi Chinnasamy's legal heirs had approached the Plaintiff's mother Vinodha with the proposal to sell their property in suit Survey No. 345, which was subsequently divided as Survey Nos. 345/1A2, 345/1A3 and 345/1C and after verifying the records as well as after physically verifying the extent, Plaintiff's mother had purchased the properties in the above said Survey numbers, totalling to an extent of 3.29 acres as per sale deed bearing Document No.2606/2002, dated 19.04.2002. The Plaintiff further states that though an extent of 5.20 acres was mentioned in the sale deed in favour of Jogi Chinnasamy's first wife Ramakka, on physical verification of the property as well as on tracing of the title, it was found that Ramakka's vendor Thippa Reddy as well as Thippa Reddy's vendor Muniyappa had valid right