The defendants have filed this revision challenging the order refusing to entertain the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint.
2. The respondent/plaintiff is the son and the first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the daughter. The plaintiff has stated that the mother has no independent source of income, but the property was purchased in her name by the father. When the father died intestate, the property belongs to all of them, and hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition.
3. It is the case of the revision petitioners/defendants that when the property stands in the name of the first defendant-mother, the son cannot make a claim, and hence, the plaint has to be rejected.
4. But, the question as to whether the property was purchased by the plaintiff's father in the name of the first defendant-mother with his funds or through any other source, has to be decided only in the suit. Hence, the contention of the revision petitioners that there is no cause of action for filing the suit, cannot be accepted and on the same ground, the trial Court had dismissed the application. I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is confirmed.
5. However, considering the fact that the scope of the suit itself is very limited and it is only between the members of the same family, a direction is issued to the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.295 of 2015, on or before 31.12.2017.
6. With the above observations and direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P. is closed.
23.02.2017 cs Copy to The Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram at Chengalpattu.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J cs C.R.P.(PD).No.578 of 2017 23.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in