(P.K. MISRA, J.)

The present appellants have filed C.S.No.420 of 2007 in the Original Side of the Madras High Court claiming the following reliefs :-

"(a) For a declaration declaring that the three Sale Deeds dated 10.03.1996 registered as Document No.2001/96, 2009/96 & 2007/96 at the office of The Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam, Chennai, executed in favour of the 3rd Defendant by Defendants 4 to 14 are sham, nominal and therefore null and void and not binding on the 2nd Plaintiff.

.(b) For a consequential Declaration declaring that the three Sale Deeds dated 30.10.2000 registered as Document Nos.3661 of 2000, 3665 of 2000 and 3667 of 2000 at the office of The Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam, Chennai, executed in favour of the 2nd Defendant is sham, nominal and therefore null and void and not binding on the 2nd Plaintiff.

.(c) For a Declaration declaring that the 2nd Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit A Schedule property by virtue of Will dated 01-07-1978 executed by Daisy Devasagayam.

.(d) To Grant Permanent Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, his men, agents, staff, subordinates and officials or any person claiming through or engaged on behalf of the 1st Defendant from and in any way interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of premises bearing Door No.80, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 either by way of dispossessing, eviction or in any other manner pending disposal of the above suit."

.2. During pendency of such suit, they filed O.A.No.606 of 2007 against Defendant No.1, namely, the District Collector-cum-Accommodation Controller, for injunction restraining such defendant from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property either by way of dispossessing, eviction or in any other manner pending disposal of the suit. The second defendant filed Application No.6129 of 2007 for rejection of the plaint in C.S.No.420 of 2007.

.By a common order dated 111. 2007, the learned single Judge has rejected the plaint in C.S.No.420 of 2007 thereby allowing Application No.6129 of 2007 and consequently rejecting O.A.No.606 of 2007 with costs of Rs.10,000/-to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

3. O.S.A.No.376 of 2007 is directed against the order allowing Application No.6129 of 2007, O.S.A.No.377 of 2007 is directed against the order relating to rejection of the suit and O.S.A.No.378 of 2007 is directed against the order whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs for injunction has been rejected on account of rejection of the plaint itself. All the three appeals, which are thus against one common order, have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgment.

4. Learned single Judge has rejected the plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 11 apparently on the ground that the present suit C.S.No.420 of 2007 is barred under Order II Rule 2, Order XXIII and Rule 1 C.P.C., and the filing of the suit is an abuse of process of the Court inasmuch as it amounts to re-litigation.

.5. For appreciating the questions raised in the present appeals, it is necessary to notice in brief the factual background as apparent from the plaint or as admitted by the parties in course of hearing before the learned single Judge or before us. For convenience, the parties are described as they are described in C.S.No.420 of 2007.

6. There is no dispute that one J.G. Devasahayam was the admitted owner of the properties now in dispute. He had one brother Rajamani and one sister Soundaram Sundaresan. The aforesaid Devasahayam expired on 21. 1962 leaving behind her widow Amy Devasahayam and two unmarried daughters Daisy and Padmini. Amy Devasahayam died on 21. 1978. Daisy expired on 111. 1979 and Padmini expired on 118.1995.

6. 1 Rajamanis branch is represented by Defendant Nos.4 to 10 and Soundaram Sundarersans branch, who died on 11. 1986, is represented by Defendant Nos.11 to

14. Defendant No.3 has purchased the propert