Madras High Court
Suresh Reddy vs Krishnappa on 28 June, 2021
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
and
CMP.No.2246 of 2018
Suresh Reddy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Krishnappa
2. Raja
3. Sujatha
4. Kenchamma
5. Annaiah @ Nallappa
6. Muthamma
7. Shilpa
8. Ramamani
9. Minor Muthuraj
10. Thoppamma
11. Narayanamma
12. Rathinamma
13. Vijay
14. Balamuralikrishna
15. Sharada
16. A.Krishnappa
17. K.Rajasekar
18. L.Ravichandran
19. M.Srinivasan
20. A.Lilly ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.337 of 2015 in
O.S.No.155 of 2014 dated 14.11.2017 on the file of the District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Vishwanath (for R-1 to R-9)
: No Appearance
(for R-10 to R-12, R-14, R-15)
: Notice Served (No Appearance)
( for R-13, R-16 to R-19)
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal
order passed in I.A.No.337 of 2015 in O.S.No.155 of 2014 dated
14.11.2017 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, thereby dismissing the petition
for rejection of plaint.
2. The petitioner is the eighth defendant and the Respondents 10 to 20
are the other defendants in the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 9 for
declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties. The
respondents 10 to 15 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 1 to 9 are the
defendants in O.S.No.41 of 1998. The said suit was filed for declaration and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
permanent injunction in respect of the property comprised in S.No.153/1A1
for an extent of 27.5 acres. According to the respondents 10 to 15 herein,
their father and the father of the respondents 1 to 9 have jointly purchased
the property ad-measuring 1.75 acres in the year 1958 by the registered sale
deed dated 10.02.1958. After purchase of the said property, on oral
partition, they got 87.5 cents each in the total extent of 1.75 acres comprised
in 153/1A1 situated at Hosur, Krishnagiri District. After oral partition, the
father of the respondents 10 to 15 died and his legal heirs inherited his share
and sold out 60 cents of it by way of three sale deeds each 20 cents dated
19.03.1997. Thereafter, the remaining property admeasuring 27.5 cents is in
possession and enjoyment of the respondents 10 to 15 herein. While being
so, the respondents 1 to 9 attempted to trespass into their property and as
such, they were constrained to file a suit in O.S. No. 41 of 1998 for
declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property admeasuring
27.5 cents comprised in S.No.153/1A1. The said suit was decreed in their
favour and aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 to 9 herein preferred
an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur. The
Appeal Suit was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the respondents 10 to
15 filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court in C.M.A.No.2759
of 2011 and the same was allowed by the judgment and decree dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
29.08.2013 and remanded the Appeal Suit for fresh consideration. Now, the
Appeal Suit in A.S.No.6 of 2008 is pending on the file of the Sub Court,
Hosur for adjudication. While pending the said appeal, the respondents 1 to
9 herein again filed the present impugned suit in O.S. No. 155 of 2014 for
declaration to declare the title in favour of the respondents 1 to 9 herein and
also for declaration to declare that the sale deeds executed by the
respondents 10 to 15 herein dated 19.03.1997 as null and void and along
with the prayer for permanent injunction.
3. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that when the respondents 10
to 15 filed the suit in O.S.No.41 of 1998, they categorically averred that
originally the property admeasuring 1.75 acres purchased by their father and
the father of the respondents 1 to 9 herein by the sale deed dated 10.02.1958
jointly. Thereafter, by oral partition, they partitioned the property and
allotted 87.5 cents to each. After demise of their father, they sold out the
property admeasuring 20 cents each by way of three sale deeds from their
share of 87.5 cents, in which the petitioner herein is one of the purchaser by
the sale deed dated 19.03.1997 in respect of 20 cents out of 87.5 cents
comprised in S.No.153/1A1 situated at Hosur, Krishnagiri District. In the
said suit, the respondents 1 to 9 filed their written statement and they denied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
the oral partition between their father and the father of the respondents 10 to
15 herein. Therefore, they had knowledge about the sale deeds, which were
executed by the respondents 10 to 15 herein dated 19.03.1997. The said suit
was decreed and the appeal suit is now pending on the file of the Sub Court,
Hosur, Krishnagiri in A.S.No.6 of 2008 filed by the respondents 1 to 9
herein. While pending, the said Appeal Suit, now the respondents 1 to 9
herein filed the present impugned suit, that too after a period of 17 years
from the date of sale deed dated 19.03.1997 for declaration to declare that
those sale deeds as null and void. Though the present suit is filed for the
entire extent of the property admeasuring 1.75 acres, the respondents 1 to 9
had knowledge about the sale deeds, which were executed by the
respondents 10 to 15, even in the year 1998 itself.
4. A perusal of the judgment passed in O.S.No.41 of 1998, reveals
that the Court below concluded that the oral partition happened in between
the respective father of the respondents 1 to 9 and the respondents 10 to 15
herein. On the strength of the said oral partition, both of their fathers were
alloted 87.5 cents each and after demise of the father of the respondents 10
to 15 herein, the respondents 10 to 15 herein executed three sale deeds on
19.03.1997 in favour of three parties, in which the petitioner is one of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
purchaser. Therefore, the suit itself clearly barred by limitation and it is
liable to be rejected.
5. Insofar as the cause of action is concerned, the present impugned
suit has been filed with the cause of action that the suit property was
purchased by their fathers on 10.02.1958 and in the last week of July 2014,
the petitioner and others tried to trespass into the suit property. Though they
stated that the petitioner and others tried to trespass into the suit property in
the month of July 2014, even according to them, no complaint was lodged
and no iota of evidence was enclosed along with the plaint for any cause of
action to file the present suit. Therefore, without any cause of action, they
filed the present impugned suit and it is liable to rejected.
6. Insofar as the plea of res-judicata is concerned, though the
respondents 10 to 15 filed the suit for declaration in respect of 27.5 cents,
they categorically disclosed the fact about the sale deeds which were
executed by them on 19.03.1997 in respect of 60 cents. Further, they
averred that the suit property was purchased by their father and father of the
respondents 1 to 9 herein jointly to an extent of 1.75 acres and thereafter,
they orally partitioned the property, in which their father was allotted 87.5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
cents in the suit property. The same was decreed and aggrieved by the same,
the respondents 1 to 9 herein filed the Appeal Suit and it is pending in
A.S.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
Therefore, the present suit is hit by the principles of res-judicata and it is not
at all maintainable. Without considering the above, the Court below
dismissed the petition for rejection of plaint only on the ground that already
the respondents 10 to 15 filed the suit and the same was decreed and
aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 to 9 filed Appeal Suit and it is
pending. Therefore, the petition for rejection of plaint is not maintainable. It
is nothing but perverse and illegal and as such, it is liable to be set aside.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.337 of 2015 in O.S.No.155 of 2014
dated 14.11.2017 is hereby set aside. The plaint in O.S.No.155 of 2014 is
hereby rejected. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. No costs.
28.06.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P (PD) No.415 of 2018
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
