JUDGMENT : C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.97 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District Court [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, are the appellants herein. They have filed the present Appeal Suit challenging the order dated 30.06.2020 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019. The said Interlocutory Application had been filed under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it was barred by res judicata, and also for non-compliance by the plaintiffs with the Court’s direction to value the suit as per Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955, and to pay Court fees on the market value of the suit property. 2 . By order dated 30.06.2020, the learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, allowed I.A.No.2 of 2019 and rejected the plaint in O.S.No.97 of 2019. 3 . Challenging the said order, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal Suit. 4 . O.S.No.97 of 2019 was filed by two brothers and two sisters/four plaintiffs seeking a judgment and decree against the defendants for partition of the suit property into eight equal shares, allotment of four such shares to the plaintiffs, delivery of possession of their respective shares, a direction to the defendants to pay the plaintiffs their share of past profits for the three years preceding the date of the suit, and future profits from the date of the suit till delivery of possession, along with costs. 5 . The plaintiffs claimed to be the sons and daughters of one M.Devaraj, who, according to them, died intestate on 01.11.2007. They asserted that they were born to Devaraj through his second wife, Annabai, who was alive at the time of the institution of the suit. 6 . The suit was filed against Ponnacharammal, who was arrayed as the first defendant, whom the plaintiffs claimed to be the first wife of M.Devaraj, and also against her three daughters, who were arrayed as defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs further impleaded defendants 6 to 12, who were stated to be purchasers of various portions of the suit property. The suit was filed against Ponnacharammal, who was arrayed as the first defendant, whom the plaintiffs claimed to be the first wife of M.Devaraj, and also against her three daughters, who were arrayed as defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs further impleaded defendants 6 to 12, who were stated to be purchasers of various portions of the suit property. The fifth defendant was described as the Power of Attorney Agent of defendants 1 to 4 and, in exercise of the said power, was alleged to have executed sale deeds in favour of defendants 6 to 12 in respect of portions of the suit property. 7 . In the plaint, it was further averred that the suit property comprised land and building measuring 0.76 cents in T.S.Nos.847, 848, 849, and 850, situated in Puthur Village within the Woraiyur Sub-Registration District and within the limits of the Trichy City Corporation. It was contended that the said property had been allotted to Devaraj under a Partition Deed dated 17.10.1973, executed between him and his father, Muthusamy. 8 . It was further contended that the property which had fallen to the share of Muthusamy was also subsequently inherited by Devaraj. The plaintiffs claimed that Devaraj had no male children through his first wife, Ponnacharammal (first defendant), and that he subsequently married their mother, Annabai, through whom the plaintiffs were born. 9 . It was contended that the suit property was the joint family property of Devaraj and, since it had not been divided by metes and bounds, the plaintiffs, as his sons and daughters, were entitled to an undivided 4/8 share therein. It was further contended that defendants 1 to 4 had no independent right to alienate the property, and that the purported sale deeds executed by them were invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiffs. It was under these circumstances that the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their 4/8 share, along with consequential reliefs. 10 . Upon receipt of suit summons, defendants 5, 6, and 10 filed I.A.No.2 of 2019, as stated earlier, under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking rejection of the plaint. 10 . Upon receipt of suit summons, defendants 5, 6, and 10 filed I.A.No.2 of 2019, as stated earlier, under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking rejection of the plaint. The grounds raised were that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata and that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the Court's direction to properly value the suit in accordance with Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955, and to pay Court fees on the market value of the suit property. 11 . In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the relationship claimed by the plaintiffs with Devaraj was specifically denied and disputed. It was contended that defendants 1 to 4 alone were the legal heirs of Devaraj. It was further stated that Devaraj, along with his wife and daughters, defendants 1 to 4 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the fifth defendant. In exercise of that authority, the fifth defendant had sub-divided the suit property into house plots and sold several of them for valuable consideration. Defendants 5 to 12 were stated to have purchased such plots and were in possession of the respective portions. 12 . It was further contended that the plaintiffs had earlier filed O.S.No.599 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants in that suit from interfering with their alleged peaceful possession of the suit property. It was pointed out that the said suit was dismissed on the ground that P.W.1/first plaintiff had admitted during cross-examination that the suit property had already been sold even prior to the institution of the suit. The appeal preferred therefrom in A.S.No.89 of 2015 was also dismissed by the I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. 13 . It was therefore contended that there was no property available for partition, and that the decision rendered in O.S.No.599 of 2008 would operate as res judicata, thereby, precluding the plaintiffs from seeking the same or similar relief in the present suit. 14 . It was also contended that the plaintiffs had failed to value the suit as required under Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955, and had not paid the requisite court fees. 14 . It was also contended that the plaintiffs had failed to value the suit as required under Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955, and had not paid the requisite court fees. On that ground as well, it was urged that the plaint was liable to be rejected. 15 . A counter affidavit was filed by the plaintiffs, wherein they reiterated their claim of being the children of Devaraj. They further alleged that the Power of Attorney purportedly executed by Devaraj in favour of the fifth defendant had been obtained by fraud. It was also stated that a Second Appeal had been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.599 of 2008, and that the same was still pending adjudication. 16 . The plaintiffs contended that, as the property in question was joint family property, they were deemed to be in joint possession thereof. It was further alleged that the defendants had colluded with one another in an attempt to deprive the plaintiffs of their legitimate share in the suit property. 17 . During the hearing of I.A.No.2 of 2019, the learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, took on record the documents filed by both the petitioners and the respondents in the said Interlocutory Application. It is to be noted that the petitioners therein were defendants 5, 6, and 10, while the respondents were the plaintiffs. 18 . Exhibits P.1 to P.4 were marked on the side of the petitioners, which comprised the judgment and decree in O.S.No.599 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 05.01.2015, and the judgment and decree in the connected appeal in A.S.No.89 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 30.08.2018. 19 . On the side of the respondents (plaintiffs in the suit), Exhibits R.1 to R.8 were filed. 19 . On the side of the respondents (plaintiffs in the suit), Exhibits R.1 to R.8 were filed. These included: (i) Ex.R.1 – Partition Deed dated 17.10.1973, under which the suit property was allotted to Devaraj; (ii) Ex.R.2 – Rough Sketch relating to the suit property; (iii) Ex.R.3 – Survey Extract Field Register; (iv) Ex.R.4 – Death Certificate of Devaraj; (v) Ex.R.5 – Legal Heirship Certificate of Devaraj; (vi) Ex.R.6 – Marriage Invitation, dated 22.08.2003 (vii) Ex.R.7 – Sale deed dated 13.12.1991 executed by the fifth defendant (Power of Attorney holder) in favour of the 12 th defendant; and (viii) Ex.R.8 – Power of Attorney Deed executed by Muthusamy and others in favour of the fifth defendant, dated 08.11.1989. 20 . Upon appreciation of the arguments advanced and the documents filed, the learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, held that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property and, therefore, were required to pay Court fees in accordance with Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955. 21 . It was, however, held that the earlier judgment in O.S.No.599 of 2008 would not operate as res judicata. Nonetheless, it was found that the plaintiffs had obtained Ex.R.4 Legal Heirship Certificate, without including defendants 1 to 4 as legal heirs of Devaraj and it was held that the same was illegal and contrary to established procedure. 22 . Further, it was concluded that the plaintiffs could only be treated as illegitimate children of Devaraj and, as such, were not entitled to claim any share in the ancestral property of their father under the applicable legal provisions. The suit was found to be vexatious and devoid of merit, and accordingly, the plaint was rejected. 23 . Challenging that order, the present Appeal Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs. 24 . In the present Appeal Suit, notice was ordered to the respondents. Pursuant to the same, notices were duly served, and counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 4 to 8 and 10 to 12. Counsel had also entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 3; however, the Vakalat filed on their behalf was returned. As regards the 9 th respondent, the notice issued was returned with the endorsement "no such addressee''. 25 . Heard arguments. 26 . Counsel had also entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 3; however, the Vakalat filed on their behalf was returned. As regards the 9 th respondent, the notice issued was returned with the endorsement "no such addressee''. 25 . Heard arguments. 26 . It is well settled in law that while examining an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the Court is required to consider only the contents of the plaint to determine whether it is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds specified under the said provision. 27 . Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is as follows:- '' 11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.'' 28 . The Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 was not filed under any specific sub-clause of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure . It is well established that each sub-clause under this Rule is distinct and mutually exclusive. The Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 was not filed under any specific sub-clause of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure . It is well established that each sub-clause under this Rule is distinct and mutually exclusive. However, a perusal of the affidavit in support of the application reveals that the primary ground urged was that the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit in accordance with Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955, and should have paid the requisite Court fees accordingly. It was contended that the Court had directed the plaintiffs to comply with this requirement, but they had failed to do so. 29 . Additionally, the application was filed on the ground that the suit property had already been alienated and, therefore, was not available for partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs’ claim of being born through the second wife of M.Devaraj was also denied and disputed. 30 . The learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, after examining the stand of the applicants/defendants 5, 6, and 10, concurred that the plaintiffs should have paid Court fees in accordance with Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955. The Court further observed that the plaintiffs, being illegitimate children, were not entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property of their father. It was also held that the property had been sold and was, therefore, not available for partition and separate possession. 31 . In Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 59 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining an application seeking rejection of the plaint, reiterated the principles to be followed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that only the averments contained in the plaint are to be considered for the purpose of such an application, and that the written statement filed by the defendant is wholly immaterial. In that case, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paragraphs 13 to 19 of the judgment, held as follows:- ''13. In that case, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paragraphs 13 to 19 of the judgment, held as follows:- ''13. As per Order 7 Rule 11, the plaint is liable to be rejected in the following cases: ''(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.'' 14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [ (2003) 1 SCC 557 ] it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code that ''9. … the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power … at any stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under Clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage,…'' (SCC p. 560, para 9) 15. In I.T.C. Ltd . v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ (1998) 2 SCC 70 ] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 16. 16. ''The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful—no formal—reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, [it has to be nipped] in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC.'' (See T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [ (1977) 4 SCC 467 ], SCC p. 468.) 17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [ (1982) 3 SCC 487 ], only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected. 18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [ (1998) 7 SCC 184 ] it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 was applicable. 19. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr. [ (2004) 3 SCC 137 ] this Court held thus : (SCC pp. 146-47, para 15) ''15. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.'' '' 32 . The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.'' '' 32 . The principle that, for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure , only the averments contained in the plaint are relevant, was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited vs. Central Bank of India and another reported in (2020) 17 SCC 260 33 . In the instant case, while deciding I.A.No.2 of 2019, the learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, went beyond the averments made in the plaint and proceeded to examine the documents filed on behalf of the defendants/applicants in the application. The learned Judge further held that the plaintiffs were illegitimate children of Devaraj and, consequently, could not claim any share in the ancestral properties of the deceased Devaraj. 34 . We are of the opinion that this is merely an inference drawn, and such an inference can only be arrived at based on material facts established in the manner known to law. 35 . In the instant case, the issue that arises is whether the plaintiffs have the right to seek partition of the schedule-mentioned property. A further issue would be whether they can ignore the Power of Attorney and the sale deeds already executed, and claim that such documents are not binding on them. These are triable issues, and unless evidence is adduced, it would not be possible to determine them. A plaint certainly cannot be rejected on these grounds. 36 . In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2019, the applicants stated that the plaintiffs had not valued the suit property in accordance with Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955, and had not paid the requisite Court fees despite directions given by the Court. This averment in the affidavit was not addressed in the order under challenge. However, we have gone through the notes papers pertaining to the plaint and find that there was no specific judicial direction by the Court before which the plaint was initially presented. This averment in the affidavit was not addressed in the order under challenge. However, we have gone through the notes papers pertaining to the plaint and find that there was no specific judicial direction by the Court before which the plaint was initially presented. The Office had merely returned the plaint on the issue of valuation and payment of Court fees. 37 . The learned counsel had answered the objections raised by the Office and re-presented the papers, and thereafter, the suit was numbered by the Court. There was, however, no judicial order directing the plaintiffs to value the suit under Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1955, or to pay Court fees accordingly. 38 . It is thus seen that the order under challenge was passed more on the basis of the averments made by the defendants in I.A.No.2 of 2019, rather than on an appreciation of the averments in the plaint to determine whether it was liable to be rejected. The procedure adopted is contrary to the dictum and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 39 . We thus have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, and allowing this Appeal Suit, thereby dismissing I.A.No.2 of 2019. The suit in O.S.No.97 of 2019 is remitted back to the I Additional District Court [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, for adjudication in the manner known to law. 40 . We find from the records that the written statement has not yet been filed. Necessary opportunity shall be granted for the filing of the written statement. If, in the written statement, a stand is taken regarding the valuation of the suit and the payment of the requisite Court fee, we direct the learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, to first examine and adjudicate that specific issue. Thereafter, the learned Judge shall proceed to adjudicate the other issues that arise for consideration. 41 . In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed. The order in I.A.No.2 of 2019 dated 30.06.2020, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, is set aside and I.A.No.2 of 2019 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 42 . 41 . In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed. The order in I.A.No.2 of 2019 dated 30.06.2020, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, is set aside and I.A.No.2 of 2019 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 42 . The Registry is directed to forward the records back to the I Additional District Court [PCR], Tiruchirappalli, for adjudication in the manner known to law, commencing from the stage when I.A.No.2 of 2019 was taken up by the Court on 03.10.2019, and to proceed further in accordance with law. The parties to appear before the said Court on 17.10.2025.