Madras High Court
M.J.Harishkumar vs L.Manimozhi Arasan on 24 September, 2021
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24 / 09 / 2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
AND
CMP NO.2635 OF 2019
1.M.J.Harishkumar
2.C.B.Suriya Narayanan
3.S.Krishnaveni ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.L.Manimozhi Arasan
2.C.Sathisuganya
3.C.B.Chandira Narayanan
4.C.B.Sankara Narayanan
5.The Superintendent of Police
SP Office
Sathuvacheri,
Vellore – 632 009.
(Respondents 2 to 5 are given up) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned
Third Additional District Court, Thirupattur.
1/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Hussain Afroze
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.7 of
2019 on the file of III Additional District Court, Thirupattur.
2.The plaint was filed for a relief of declaration of Sale Deed
dated 01.10.2018 as null and void and for declaration declaring the
cancellation of Power of Attorney Deed dated 13.06.2013 as not valid and
binding on the plaintiff and for specific performance of the Sale Agreement
dated 20.09.2007 pursuant to the Power of Attorney Deed dated 16.06.2005
with regard to the Suit property which is in possession of the plaintiff or in
the alternative for refund of the advance amount.
3.The plaintiff is the first respondent. He entered into a Sale
Agreement with the sixth defendant / fourth respondent on 20.09.2007. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
Suit property is a joint family property. It is owned by one C.A.Baskar Babu,
his wife and two sons, namely, defendants 2 to 6. They have given a
registered Power of Attorney dated 16.06.2005 in favour of the sixth
defendant. He entered into a Sale Agreement, as mentioned above, on
20.09.2007. Time was not the essence of the contract. The total sale
consideration was fixed as Rs.1 Crore. A sum of Rs.90,00,000/- (Rupees
Ninety Lakhs Only) was received as advance by the sixth defendant and after
receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- the defendants 2 to
6 are bound to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or anybody
nominated by him. As per the recitals of the Sale Agreement, the plaintiff
was put in possession of the entire Suit property and the original documents
bearing Nos.238/1998 and 293/1998 were entrusted to him.
4.By virtue of the Power of Attorney Deed, the sixth defendant
sold the property in Plot No.7, which belonged to the second and fifth
defendants under registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.2010. Later, on the
sentimental value, at the request of the sixth defendant, it was reconveyed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
good and valid consideration to the sixth defendant by registered Sale Deed
dated 25.10.2013. The Sale Deeds dated 17.06.2010 and 25.10.2013 are
valid, true and binding on all concerned.
5.The plaintiff was demanding the sixth defendant to execute the
Sale Deed in his favour after receiving the balance sale consideration in
respect of the Suit property. In the meanwhile, one of the Principals namely,
C.A.Baskar Babu died on 02.02.2012 and the sixth defendant extended the
time for execution of the Sale Deed due to the death of C.A.Baskar Babu.
The plaintiff learnt that the defendants 2, 4 and 5 along with 6th defendant,
are more interested to defeat, delay and defraud the plaintiff without
executing the Sale Deed and were trying to encumber the Suit property.
Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 17.02.2018 to the defendants
2, 4, 5 and 6 and it was replied by them on 06.03.2018 with an averment that
the Power of Attorney Deed was cancelled on 13.06.2013. The plaintiff came
to know of the fact only through the reply notice dated 06.03.2018. The said
cancellation of Power of Attorney Deed is not valid and true and the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
will not bind the plaintiff. Before issuance of the legal notice dated
15.10.2018, the plaintiff learnt that the defendants 2 and 3 have executed the
Sale Deed dated 01.10.2018 in favour of the first defendant and the Sale
Deed is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.
6.The second defendant executed a Settlement Deed in favour of
the third respondent in respect of the Suit property which is also not valid.
The original documents of the Suit property, namely, Document
Nos.234/1998 and 293/1998 are in the custody of the plaintiff and the
possession and enjoyment of the Suit property is also with him and therefore,
the alleged Sale Deed dated 01.10.2018 will not give possession to the first
defendant. Therefore, the recitals of the Sale Deed are false and thus, the Sale
Deed is not valid, true and binding on the plaintiff. The legal notice issued by
the defendants with false allegations are not tenable. From the date of
demand i.e., on 17.02.2018, the defendants have failed to perform their part
of the contract and further, they have cheated and defrauded the plaintiff
from performing his part of contract. Therefore, the Suit has been filed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
time and there is cause of action to sue against the defendants as time runs
from 17.02.2018 onwards. Hence, the plaintiff filed the Suit for the above
said relief.
7.The defendants 1 to 3 have preferred the above Civil Revision
Petition on the grounds that the Suit is barred by limitation and it does not
conform to the requirements of Order VII Rule 6 CPC. Further, the plaintiff
failed to plead his readiness and willingness in compliance with Form 47 of
Appendix “A” of Order VI Rule 6 CPC and the challenge as to the three
registered documents are not in conformity with Order VI Rule 4 CPC. The
pleadings of misrepresentation, fraud and undue influence, breach of trust,
wilful default, are not supported by specific pleadings. Further, the plaintiff
has suppressed and withheld the material documents, which amounts to
playing fraud on the Court. In spite of disclosure of the factum of the
transactions, there is no specific pleadings. Further, during the exchange of
notices, the defendants have sought for the alleged Sale Agreement dated
20.09.2007, but it was not produced before the defendants. The Suit is bad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
for undervaluation also. The defendants would claim that the Suit is a clear
abuse of process of law for getting a spurious claim and it is frivolous in
nature. Therefore, it is liable to be struck off. In support of their contention,
the defendants relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court.
8.It is true to state that the averments in the plaint are germane
for consideration to strike off and for rejection of the same. It is also true to
state that Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall be sparingly exercised
and the parties shall be directed to avail the remedy of filing an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint.
9.The learned counsel for the first respondent would contend
that the defendants shall first avail the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
for rejection of plaint and thereafter only, they can approach this Court. In
support of his contention, he would rely on the following judgments: -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
(i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
CHHOTANBEN AND ANOTHER VS. KIRITBHAI
JALKRUSHNABHAI THAKKAR AND OTHERS
[2018 (4) CTC (SC) 206]
(ii) Judgment of this Court in A.R.SURESH
AND ANOTHER VS. TEK SMARK GROUP REP.
BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR AND ANOTHER
[2016 (4) MLJ 674]
(iii) Judgment of this Court in C.JAWAHAR
APPASAMY VS. A.VANCHI CHIDAMBARA
BHARATHI [2018 (1) MWN (CIVIL) 745]
(iv) Judgment of this Court in T.K.CHITHRAN
AND ANOTHER VS. C.SAMSARI @ CHITHIRAN
[2015 (3) CTC 485]
10.From the perusal of the plaint, it is seen that, at the outset, the
entire claim is based on the Sale Agreement dated 20.09.2007. The said
agreement is an unregistered Sale Agreement. The sixth defendant has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
executed the Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The sixth defendant
was appointed as a Power of Attorney vide registered Document
No.198/2005 on 16.06.2005. There is no doubt that the said document was
executed on 16.06.2005 by all the family members for sale of the properties
belonging to them. But the said unregistered Sale Agreement fixes the value
of the property as Rs.1 Crores. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.90,00,000/-
(Rupees Ninety Lakhs Only) is said to have been received as advance. But, it
is a matter for trial. However, the recitals in the Sale Agreement specified
that whenever the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- is paid and
whenever the purchaser calls the vendor to execute the sale deed, the second
party, namely, the sixth defendant shall come and register the Sale Deed.
Further, the possession of the property was entrusted with the defendants
along with the original Title Deeds, namely, Document Nos.238/1998 and
293/1998. From the above, it is seen that the possession was handed over on
the date of agreement, and the original Title Deeds were entrusted to the
plaintiff. But the original Title Deeds are not shown as plaint documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
11.Now that, it has to be seen as to whether the Suit is within the
limitation period. It is stated that Rs.90,00,000/- was paid in respect of an
unregistered Sale Agreement, without any receipts and without any details of
mode of payment. Even assuming that the said payment was made, there shall
be specific averments with regard to the same.
12.Be that as it may, now that the Sale Agreement dated
20.09.2007 is sought to be performed before the death of one of the
Principals, namely, C.A.Baskar Babu, in the year 2012. After that, next
demand was made only on 17.02.2018 by way of a legal notice.
13.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in VEERAYEE
AMMAL VS. SEENI AMMAL [2002 (1) SCC 134] has observed as under:
“12.In K.S. Vidyanadam & Ors. v. Vairavan [1997
(3) SCC 1] this Court held:
"Even where time is not of the essence of the
contract, the plaintiffs must perform his part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
contract within a reasonable time and reasonable time
should be determined by looking at all the surrounding
circumstances including the express terms of the contract
and the nature of the property."
13.The word "reasonable" has in law prima facie
meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of
which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably
knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It
may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the
word "reasonable". The reason varies in its conclusion
according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time
and circumstances in which he thinks. The dictionary
meaning of the "reasonable time" is to be so much time as is
necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently
what the contract or duty requires should be done in a
particular case. In other words it means as soon as
circumstances permit. In Law Lexicon it is defined to
mean:
"A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances
of the case; a reasonable time under ordinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
circumstances; as soon as circumstance will permit; so
much time as is necessary under the circumstances,
conveniently to do what the contract requires should be
done; some more protracted space thant 'directly'; such
length of time as may fairly, and properly, and reasonably
be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the
act or duty and to the attending circumstances; all these
convey more or less the same idea."
14.This Court in SURYAGANDHI VS. LOURDUSWAMY
[2002 (3) MLJ 788] has observed as under:
“24. Assuming for the purpose of argument that the
defendant has not produced the original document of title
and encumbrance certificate, which is not an impossibility,
there is no reason at all for the plaintiff to keep quiet for
nearly Nine years and thereafter make a demand under
Ex.A.13. The assumption on the part of the appellate court
that for nine years and till a demand is made the contract is
kept alive and the limitation to institute a suit commences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
only after a demand is made after 8 years 10 months and the
limitation has to be reckoned from the date of demand viz.,
Ex.A.13, is legally unsustainable. If such a view is taken
the purchaser could wait or keep silent or even more for Ten
years to make a demand and thereafter it could be contended
that the suit claim is not barred by limitation or the
purchaser is entitled to seek for specific performance. On the
facts the view taken by the first appellate court is
unsustainable in law and it is a clear misconception of the
legal position.
25....
26....
27.One another aspect the learned counsel for the
defendant highlighted is that the plaintiff has not acted
within a reasonable time and Nine years and above is not a
reasonable time at all for the plaintiff to awake from the
deep sleep and demand for sale. In Vidyanandam vs.
Vairavan , the Apex Court has laid down thus:-
"Even where time is not of the essence of the
contract, the plaintiff must perform his part of the contract
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
within a reasonable time and reasonable time should be
determined by looking at all the surrounding circumstances
including the express terms of the contract and the nature of
the property."
28. In Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni Ammal, reported in
2002(1) SCC 136, while examining the word "reasonable" in
the context of specific performance of sale agreement, the
Apex Court held thus:-
13. The word "reasonable" has in law prima facie
meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of
which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably
knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may
be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word
"reasonable". The reason varies in its conclusion according to
idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and
circumstances in which he thinks. The dictionary meaning of
the "reasonable time" is to be so much time as is necessary,
under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the
contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case.
In other words it means, as soon as circumstances permit. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
P. Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon it is defined to
mean:
"A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances
of the case; a reasonable time under ordinary circumstances;
as soon as circumstances will permit; so much time as is
necessary under the circumstances, conveniently to do what
the contract requires should be done; some more protracted
space than 'directly'; such length of time as may fairly, and
properly, and reasonably be allowed or required, having
regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending
circumstances; all these convey more or less the same idea."
29. On the facts of the case by all standards, it
cannot be said that the plaintiff has acted reasonably. Nine
years and odd is not a reasonable time at all by all standards
and the plaintiff has to blame himself in keeping quiet for
nine years and thereafter issuing a notice. Further, there is
nothing to show that the plaintiff has kept the contract
alive for nine years except his assertion that he is in
possession of the suit property. The possession of the
plaintiff is not in terms of the agreement to sell, nor it is in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
part performance, but possession is that of a tenant, which
commenced long prior to the sale agreement, the plea of part
performance is untrue and false.
In the instant case, there was a delay of about nine
months between the last extended time and the notice given
by the plaintiff to the defendant calling upon the latter to
execute a sale deed. There was no correspondence during this
period between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard
to extension of time for completion of the contract and there
is nothing to show that anything was done by the plaintiff
to keep alive the agreement of sale. In the above
circumstances, the principles laid down in the above case
would apply to the facts of this case and from the
considerable delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff, we
can easily infer that there was a waiver or abandonment of
the contract."
36. Concedingly the plaintiff has not offered to pay
the balance of sale price within six months or closely
following thereafter or within three years from the date of
the agreement or the date fixed for performance, but he kept
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
quiet for nine long years and made a demand and therefore
it has to be held that the plaintiff has not only failed to
keep the contract alive, but also failed to perform his part of
the contract. After having kept quiet for nine long years, it
is not open to the plaintiff to blame the defendant that the
defendant has not performed his part of the contract. The
first appellate court proceeded on the question of limitation
as if the limitation starts to run only from the time when
the plaintiff issued a notice and the defendant has refused
to perform or complete the sale. This view cannot be
sustained and the lower appellate court has
misread Art.54 of the Limitation Act. Art.54 of The
Limitation Act reads thus:-
“description of suits Period of limitation Time from
which period begins to run For specific performance of a
contract Three years The date fixed for the performance, or,
if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that
performance is refused.”
37.In this case the date has been fixed for
performance, namely six months and assuming that three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
years has to be reckoned from the date of the agreement even
then the suit instituted after nine years is barred by
limitation. The construction placed on Art.54 by the Lower
appellate court cannot be sustained in law.
15.In the instant case, the plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement
on 20.09.2007. He avers that he demanded performance of the contract in the
year 2012 itself before the death of one of the Principals namely C.A.Baskar
Babu, who died on 02.02.2012. Even before that, the plaintiff and the sixth
defendant have entered into a sale transaction. On 17.06.2010, the sixth
defendant sold the property belonging to the defendants 2 and 5. In that
event, there is no explanation as to why the remaining properties were not
registered. Curiously, after the execution of the said Sale Deed dated
17.06.2010, one of the Principals died on 02.02.2012 and on 13.06.2013, the
registered Power of Attorney Deed vide document No.198/2005 was
cancelled vide Document No.6479/2013. The recitals in the Cancellation
Deed specifically mentioned that the Power of Attorney was informed of the
cancellation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
16.The crucial point is that after the said cancellation of Power
of Attorney Deed, the plaintiff executed a registered Sale Deed dated
25.10.2013, conveying the very same property in Plot No.7 to the sixth
defendant for valid consideration. There is no specific averments with regard
to the payment of sale consideration to the transaction while a sum of
Rs.90,00,000/- was paid to the Power of Attorney by virtue of the
unregistered Sale Agreement. It is more crucial to note that during the sale
transaction dated 25.10.2013, the said Power of Attorney Deed was already
cancelled. Of course, for registering a property in favour of the sixth
defendant, who is the Power of Attorney, the subsistence of power is not
material. But what is material is that the encumbrance with regard to the
property entered in the registers of the Sub Registrar. There is no specific
explanation or averments as required under Order III Rule 6 CPC.
17.The plaintiff cannot plead ignorance of the fact and simply
say that he made a demand on 17.02.2018 by virtue of a legal notice and
came to know of the fact that the property was sold, by virtue of the reply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
notice dated 06.03.2018. Only by the reply notice, he came to know of the
cancellation of Power of Attorney Deed. It is well settled that the agreement
holder shall prove his readiness and willingness on day-to-day basis and that
the delay had not occurred due to his fault. But, in fact, there were other
transactions. The second defendant had settled the property by virtue of a
registered Settlement Deed bearing No.1219/2017 dated 28.09.2017. There is
no specific averment as to the registration of the Settlement Deed and the
knowledge of the plaintiff.
18.Whenever a litigant approaches the Court, he shall plead and
prove the facts. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to
enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. But in the instant
case, in order to prove that the Suit is well within the limitation period, the
plaintiff has not pleaded the necessary facts, which will enable him to obtain
a decree. In that view of the matter, the plaint filed after a period of 11 years
is hopelessly barred by limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
19. A Division Bench of this Court in
DR.L.RAMACHANDRAN VS. K.RAMESH AND OTHERS [2015 (5) CTC
629] has observed as under:
“26.In terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, the Plaint
shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement
in the Plaint to be barred by any law. The scope of Rule 11
of Order 7 CPC has been explained in various decisions and
the legal principle deducible are that, if the Plaint does not
disclose the cause of action or is bared by law; can be
rejected where the litigation was utterly vexatious and
abuse of process of Court ; if any one of the conditions
mentioned under the Rule were found to exist, thus saving
the defendants onerous and hazardous task of contesting a
non maintainable suit during the course of protracted
litigation and where the suit was instituted without proper
authority. Thus, the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 PC being
procedural is designed and aimed to prevent vexatious and
frivolous litigation. The plaint is liable to be rejected on the
ground of limitation only where the suit appears from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
statements in the plaint to be barred by any law and the
law within the meaning of clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, shall include law of limitation as well. “
20.In so far as the pleadings with regard to the exemption of
limitation is concerned, as contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the plaintiff is bound to plead the grounds of exemption from
limitation. Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that
where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the
law of limitation, the plaint shall show the grounds upon which exemption
from such law is claimed.
21.In the instant case, the plaintiff simply makes an averment
that from the date of demand on 17.02.2008 and from the date of his
knowledge viz., 06.03.2018, the Suit is in time. There is no explanation as to
why the limitation shall not be calculated from the date of agreement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
22.As per the judgment of this Court SURYAGANDHI's case
(cited supra) the plaintiff is expected to act within a reasonable time. A
period of eleven years is not a reasonable time at all for the plaintiff to awake
from the deep sleep and made a demand, particularly, when he was in
continuous touch with the Power of Attorney, namely, the sixth defendant
and had transactions, with whom he had other sale transactions. Therefore,
the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
23.In respect of cause of action is concerned, the plaint shall
disclose the cause of action for each prayer. The cause of action is a bundle
of facts, which taken with the right applicable to them gives the plaintiff the
right to relief against the defendants. The plaintiff in the present case has
simply pleaded as follows:
“Since the 2nd defendant has settled the suit
property in favour of the 3rd defendant by way of
registered settlement deed and by virtue of the same, the
defendants 2 and 3 had executed sale deed in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
1st defendant in respect of the suit property. The alleged
settlement was created in order to defeat, delay and
defraud the plaintiff from enforcing the sale agreement.
Hence the alleged settlement deed is not valid and true and
same is not binding on the plaintiff. .......”
But, in the cause of action, the execution of Settlement Deed was not raised
giving rise to the filing of the Suit.
24.It is well settled that if on an entire and meaningful reading of
the plaint, it is found that the Suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the
sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the Court is empowered to terminate
the civil action at the threshold. Order VI Rule 4 CPC mandates that in a case
of fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, shall be pleaded specifically.
25.It is relevant to note that in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in CANARA BANK VS. P.SELATHAL AND OTHERS
[2020 (2) MLJ 591 (SC)] it is observed as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
“7.3.In the case of T. Arivandandam (supra), while
considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 of
the CPC and the decree of the trial Court in considering such
application, this Court in para 5 has observed and held as
under:
“5.We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process
of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From
the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the
High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending
before the First Munsif’s Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant
misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The
learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful –
not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious,
and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11
CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a
cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An
activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits….”
7.4.In the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust
and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman
Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706, this Court in paras 13
has observed and held as under:
“13.While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the
bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the materials
for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts
which taken with the law applicable to them gives the
plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every
fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable
him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is
worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words “cause of
action”. A cause of action must include some act done by the
Defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of
action can possible accrue.”
7.5.In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies,
Salem (supra), this Court explained the meaning of “cause of
action” as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
“12................ It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but includes all the
material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise
evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact
necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a
decree. Everything which is not proved would give the
defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of
the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the
defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it
depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the
plaintiff.”
7.6.In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable (supra) in
paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed as under:
“11....................
12. ......... 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 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam (supra).”
7.7.In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra
Murthy (supra), this Court has observed and held as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
“7. ................. If on an entire and meaningful
reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly
vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any
right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the court to
terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the
conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the
exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly
adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a
whole to find out whether the suit is barred by any law. It
is needless to observe that the question as to whether the
suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. ..................”
7.8.In the case of Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat
Mehal Kalan (1986) 4 SCC 364, this Court has observed
and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the
plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by
means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those
circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of
limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
9.Relying upon and following the decision of this
Court in the case of O.C. Krishnan and others (supra),
thereafter the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
the case of M/s Cambridge Solutions Limited (supra), has
rejected the plaint in which the order passed by the DRT
was challenged, in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11
(d) of the CPC. It is required to be noted that in the said
case also there were allegations of fraud in the plaint and
considering the averments in the plaint, it was found that
the allegations of fraud are illusory. It is observed by the
Division Bench in the said decision that specific instances
and acts of fraud with evidence have to be pleaded in the
plaint. It is further observed that mere statements are not
enough. It is further observed that it is not sufficient if just
fraud is pleaded and there must be material to show that the
fraud is committed.”
26.The First Bench of this Court in CAMBRIDGE
SOLUTIONS LIMITED VS. GLOBAL SOFTWARE LIMITED AND
OTHERS [2017 (1) CTC 497] relied on a judgment of the Orissa High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
in PADMA BEWA VS. KRUPASINDHU BISWAL AND OTHERS [AIR
1986 ORI. 97]. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
“15.In Padma Bewa v. Krupasindhu Biswal and
others, AIR 1986 Ori. 97, it has been held as under:
“6. A plea of fraud is to be raised in the pleadings by
giving the particulars thereof as required under Order 6,
Rule 4 of Civil P. C. Pleadings should be concise, but they
should also be precise. When fraud is charged against a
defendant, it is an acknowledged rule of pleading that the
plaintiff must set forth the particulars of the fraud which is
alleged. It is not enough to use such general words as
'fraud', 'deceit' or 'machinations'. The circumstances on
which a plea of fraud is raised must be incompatible with
the hypothesis of good faith.
7.When misrepresentations are alleged, the party
pleading them should state as to each misrepresentation, its
date and whether it was made in writing or verbal and as to
each verbal misrepresentation, the occasion thereof. While it
is true that 'undue influence', 'fraud' and 'misrepresentation'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
are cognate vices and may, in part, overlap in some cases,
they are in law distinct categories and are in view of Order
6, Rule 4, read with Order 6, Rule 2 of Civil P. C. required
to be separately pleaded, with specificity, particularity and
precision. (See AIR 1976 SC 163 Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman
Bibi).
27.Further, the First Bench in Cambridge Solutions's case
(cited supra) has also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
T.ARIVANANDAM VS. SATYAPAL [AIR 1977 SC 2421] and observed as
under:
“21. This court, after careful perusal of the plaint,
feels that the averments regarding fraud and collusion are
non-existent and have been made only to sustain the suit.
Procedural irregularities by the tribunal not affecting the
parties concerned cannot amount to fraud. The Honourable
Supreme Court in its decision reported in AIR 1977 SC
2421 (T.Arivanandam Vs. Satyapal) has held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
“5.We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process
of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From
the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the
High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending
before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant
misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The
learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not
formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and
meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue,
be should exercise his power under Or. VII R.11 C.P.C.
taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of
a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by
examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An
activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The
trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party
at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot
down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also
resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost
realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is dangerous to be too
good."
22. It is very clear from the above judgment that it is
the duty of every trial court to carefully analyze whether
the cause of action pleaded in the averments in the plaint is
real or fictitious. In case, it is found to be surreal, the plaint
must be rejected at the thresh hold with costs.
28.In the present case, even though the plaintiff alleged the acts
of fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust etc., there is no specific details to
prove the same in compliance with Order VI Rule 4 CPC. On the other hand,
the plaint averments discloses that the original Title Deeds, namely,
Document No.238/1998 and 293/1998 were entrusted to him. In the plaint
Document No.6 - Settlement Deed executed by the second defendant in
favour of the third defendant dated 28.09.2017, it is categorically mentioned
that it is a self earned property of the second defendant and it is in exclusive
possession and enjoyment of him and the patta also stands in his name and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
that he settled it in favour of the third defendant. Further, the factum that the
property originally purchased by the second defendant in his individual
capacity and it is his separate property is substantiated by plaint Document
Nos.8 and 9, the reply notice dated 06.03.2018 and the registered sale deed
dated 01.10.2018. In spite of the same, the plaintiff pleads that it is a joint
family property.
29.As noted above, the plaintiff shall plead every fact necessary
for the plaint and to prove them so as to enable him to obtain a decree. But
the plaint is silent in the aspect of pleading that as to how he was put in
possession and what are the materials to prove his possession and as to how
the property is a joint family property.
30.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in POPAT AND KOTECHA
PROPERTY VS. SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION [2005 (7) SCC 510] has
observed as under:
“22. There is distinction between "material facts"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
and "particulars". The words "material facts" show that the
facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action
must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to
an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint
becomes bad. The distinction which has been made between
"material facts" and "particulars" was brought by Scott,
L.J. in Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd.
23. Rule 11 of Order 7 lays down an independent
remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the
maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to
contest the same on merits. The law ostensibly does not
contemplate at any stage when the objections can be raised,
and also does not say in express terms about the filing of a
written statement. Instead, the word "shall" is used clearly
implying thereby that it casts a duty on the court to
perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the
same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four
clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of the
defendant. In any event, rejection of the plaint under Rule
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh
plaint in terms of Rule 13."
31.As per the above judgment, omission of a single material fact
leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement in the plaint
becomes bad. It is necessary to provide the complete material facts. Mere
giving a statement or a particular that it is a joint family property is not
enough, but it should contain the material facts as to how it is a joint family
property and that how it gives rise to cause of action. Furthermore, as pleaded
that the original documents are handed over to him vide Document
Nos.238/1998 and 293/1998, those documents were not produced before the
Court along with the plaint.
32.It is well settled that withholding of a vital document in order
to gain advantage, would amount to playing fraud on the Court and the
plaintiff would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court and on the opposite
party.
33.In the instant case, even though a specific reply was given to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
the legal notice that the properties are separate properties of the second
defendant and the original document would reveal the same, in order to
sustain the pleading that it is a joint family property and in order to get undue
advantage with the strength of the agreement for sale, the plaintiff has
withheld those documents, which amounts to playing fraud on the Court.
34.This Court in RAMIAH ASARI VS. TMT.KURSHAD
BEGAUM AND ANOTHER [1999 (1) CTC 600] relying on a judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.MODI VS. K.N.MODI [1998 (3) SCC
573] has observed as under”:
“17. Honourable Supreme Court in a recent decision
reported in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, , had occasion to
consider this question. In paragraph 44 of the Judgment,
their Lordships held thus,
"........... A proceeding being filed for a collateral
purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may
also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
process of the court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings
may also amount to an abuse of the process of the court
especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless.
The court then has the power to stop such proceedings
summarily and prevent the time of the public and the court
from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the
courts discretion whether such proceedings should be
stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with
circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be
sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The
Court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the
suit succeeding," (Italics supplied)
.......
18. Taking into consideration above decision, I feel
it is a fit case where the said power should be invoked. On
going by the averments of plaint, I am satisfied that there
is no chance of plaintiff succeeding in the suit and the
claim is made only for collateral purpose or it is only a
spurious claim. It is of frivolous nature and to prevent the
time of public and court being wasted, suit should not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
allowed to be proceeded with. Improper use of machinery
of court also should not be allowed to be continued for the
continued prosecution of this vexatious litigation. Interest
of Justice being paramount consideration, I feel it is the fit
case that the plaint is to be struck off the file.”
Thus, the plaint averments on the allegations of fraud, does not disclose any
cause of action and in fact, creates illusory cause of action and thereby,
vexatious and malafide averments are made to overcome the law of
limitation. In view of the above judgment in K.K.Modi's case (cited supra)
the plain is liable to be struck off.
35.In yet another judgment of this Court in TAMIL NADU
HANDLOOM WEAVERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. S.R.EJAZ
[2009 (5) CTC 710] the learned Judge has explained the extent of
supervisory jurisdiction relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the relevant paragraph reads as under:
“49.In Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
Singh, 2006(2) SCALE 304 = (2006) 3 SCC 312) the
Supreme Court indicated the extent of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thus:
"13. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution may be restrictive in the sense that it is to be
invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction. But when a
court asks itself a wrong question or approaches the
question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding
of fact, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be one
rendered with jurisdiction and it will still be amenable to
correction at the hands of the High Court under Article
227 of the Constitution. The failure to render the necessary
findings to support its order would also be a jurisdictional
error liable to correction."
(Emphasis supplied)
50.The Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram
Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675, considered the nature of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
and held thus :
"22. ... It is well settled that the power of
superintendence so conferred on the High Court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being
invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even
be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind
vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High
Court is paving the path of justice and removing any
obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than
the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the
sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to
those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which
are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters
invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.
25. ... In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High
Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned
proceedings, judgment or order but it may also make such
directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may
warrant, maybe, by way of guiding the inferior court or
tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed
further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High
Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising
supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a decision of its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
own in place of the impugned decision, as the inferior court
or tribunal should have made. Lastly, the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being
exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party
aggrieved; the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being
exercised suo motu as well.”
36.It is well settled that in a Suit for specific performance as per
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a person shall aver and prove
that he has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of
contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance
of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. In fact, the
readiness and willingness shall be proved on day today basis.
37.In the instant case, the plaintiff is said to have paid a sum of
Rs.90,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1 Crore. The balance
amount to be paid is only Rs.10,00,000/- which is a very small sum when
compared to the total sale consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
38.In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
PADMAKUMARI AND OTHERS VS. DASAYYAN AND OTHERS [2015
(8) SCC 695] it is observed as under:
“11.Another ground urged by learned counsel for
defendant Nos. 12 to 15 is that the pleadings on behalf of
the plaintiff must be strictly in conformity with Order 6
Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC" for short)
which provides Form of pleadings and placed strong reliance
upon Clause 3 of Form No. 47 in Appendix 'A' which reads
thus:
"The plaintiff has been and still is ready and willing
specifically to perform the agreement on his part of which
the defendant has had notice".
12.The learned counsel further places reliance upon
the plaint averments at para 6, which is quoted hereinafter,
submitted that the said averments are not strictly in
conformity with Order 6 Rule 3 CPC of Form 47 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
aforesaid clause, therefore, the plaintiff has not shown
readyness and willingness which is the condition precedent
as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act,
that has been ignored by both the Courts below, therefore,
the concurrent finding recorded by the High Court in the
absence of this important aspect of the case has not only
rendered the finding erroneous in law but the same are
contrary to the judgments of this Court. Learned counsel
placed strong reliance upon the following judgments in the
cases of Jugraj Singh & Anr. vs. Labh Singh & Ors., (1995)
2 SCC 31 at para 6, Ram Awadh vs. Achhaibar Dubey,
(2000) 2 SCC 428, Ouseph Varghese vs. Joseph Aley & Ors.,
(1969) 2 SCC 539, Abdul Khader Rowther vs. P.K. Sara
Bai & Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 313, Pushparani S. Sundaram &
Ors. vs. Pauline Manomani James (D) & Ors., (2002) 9 SCC
582, Manju Nath Anandappa Urf Shivappa Hansai vs.
Tammanasa & Ors.,(2003) 10 SCC 390 paras 15, 17 and
18”.
As per the above judgment, it is very clear that the plaint averments does not
conform to the mandates of Order VI Rule 3 CPC and Form 47 provided in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
Annexure “A” in the schedule.
39.In the absence of pleading with regard to the readiness and
willingness and also withholding of the material facts and material
documents, would render the plaint bad for no cause of action, time barred,
non compliance of the mandatory requirements of law and barred by
limitation and barred by law, as held by His Lordship Justice V.R.Krishna
Iyer in T.ARIVANANDAM VS. T.V.SATYAPAL AND ANOTHER [1977
(4) SCC 467]. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:
“5.We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process
of the court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From
the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the
High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending
before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant
misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The
learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and
meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue,
be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C.
taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a
cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by
examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An
activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The
trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party
at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot
down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also
resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered
against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost
realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:
"It is dangerous to be too good."
40.In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case on
hand is absolutely clear abuse of process of law and accordingly, the plaint in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
O.S.No.7 of 2019 on the file of III Additional District Court, Thirupattur is
struck off and the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
24 / 09 / 2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
TK
To
The Third Additional District Judge
Third Additional District Court
Thirupattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
CRP (PD) NO.382 OF 2019
24 / 09 / 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
