Madras High Court
B.Gowdappa vs Jayamma on 1 June, 2021
CRP.No.1049/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP.No.1049/2021
[Video Conferencing]
B.Gowdappa .. Petitioner
Vs
1.Jayamma
2.Venkatesappa
3.Smt.Sampangiyamman .. Respondents
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to direct the Principal District Court at Krishnagiri,
to number the suit filed by the petitioner under OSCFR No.1317/2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
ORDER
1. Considering the scope of the Revision, notice to the respondents is
deemed unnecessary.
CRP.No.1049/2021
2. The petitioner laid a suit for specific performance based on a oral
Agreement of Sale. It is the specific claim of the plaintiff that the
defendants are closely related to him and the Agreement was carried
out in good faith. It is also averred that the agreement was entered
into in the presence of certain respectable persons in the locality.
The learned Trial Judge had returned the plaint on the ground that
no evidence of Agreement of Sale has been produced. The first
return was made on 19.02.2021, wherein the learned Principal
District Judge, required the plaintiff to produce the written Sale
Agreement. The plaint was represented on 02.03.2021 citing certain
judgments justifying the right of the plaintiff to file a suit based on
an oral agreement.
3. The learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, has again returned
the plaint concluding that the previous return holds good.
4. There are two errors in the approach of the learned Principal District
Judge, Krishnagiri.
5. The learned Principal District Judge, seems to be under the
impression that a suit based on an oral Agreement of Sale, cannot be
maintained and there should be some evidence in writing to prove
CRP.No.1049/2021
the Agreement. This approach is clearly wrong. An Agreement of
Sale need not be in writing. A plaintiff can establish an oral
Agreement by letting in oral evidence and therefore, the first ground
on which the plaint is returned, cannot be sustained.
6. As far as the other ground is concerned, once the learned Principal
District Judge comes to the conclusion that the previous return holds
good and does not accept reasons given for previous return, he ought
to have rejected the plaint and not returned the same to the plaintiff,,
giving time to represent the same.
7. Even while representing the plaint on 02.03.2021, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner herein has made it very clear that
there is no written Agreement and even in the plaint, it is made clear
that there is no written Agreement and the parties being relatives,
they trusted each other. Therefore, I do not think that the action of
the learned Principal District Judge, in returning the plaint could be
sustained.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of
the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, in returning the
plaint dated 26.03.2021 is set aside. The learned Principal District
CRP.No.1049/2021
Judge, Krishnagiri, is directed to number the suit and proceed with
the same on merits without being, in any manner, influenced by any
of the observations made in this order. No costs.
9. The Registry is directed to return the original plaint said to have
been filed on 26.04.2021 to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The plaint shall be represented within a period of six weeks from
today.
01.06.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
NOTE:- The Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order by
10.06.2021.
To
The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri.
CRP.No.1049/2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.,
AP
CRP.No.1049/2021
01.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5
