Madras High Court
Mamtha A.Muthaa vs M.Krishnaveni on 27 September, 2021
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.1300 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.7268 of 2016
Mamtha A.Muthaa .. Petitioner
Vs.
M.Krishnaveni .. Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated
16.03.2016, made in I.A.No.14016 of 2015 in O.S.No.833 of 2015, on
the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ravi
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
order dated 16.03.2016, made in I.A.No.14016 of 2015 in O.S.No.833 of
2015, on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in
O.S.No.833 of 2015, on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai. The respondent filed the said suit for permanent injunction,
restraining the petitioner, her men and agents, from interfering and
dispossessing the respondent from peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit property. The petitioner filed written statement in July, 2015,
denying the averments in the plaint. The petitioner also filed
I.A.No.14016 of 2015 on 16.09.2015, under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.,
to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the
cause of action, suit is barred by limitation and respondent did not seek
relief for declaration of title and mere injunction against true owner is not
maintainable. According to the petitioner, the respondent received sale
consideration and executed sale deed and handed over the possession of
the suit property. The agreement of sale is dated 21.11.2011 and the sale
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
deed is executed on 08.12.2011. The alleged sale letter dated 03.06.2013
is a fabricated one. The suit filed on 09.02.2015 is barred by limitation
and prayed for rejection of plaint.
3.The respondent filed counter affidavit and contended that she is
seeking permanent injunction and she is not seeking any relief to set
aside the sale deed. The petitioner agreed to purchase the suit property
for a sum of Rs.1,21,21,541/- and on believing the assurance given by
the petitioner to pay the remaining amount after execution of sale deed,
the respondent executed the sale deed without knowing the consequences
of the same, in which the sale consideration was shown only as
Rs.75,00,000/-. The respondent did not hand over the possession of the
suit property. The petitioner, taking advantage of the litigation between
the respondent and third party viz., Sankaran, agreed to pay another sum
of Rs.30,00,000/-, paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 03.06.2013 and
promised to pay the remaining sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards additional
sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- over and above the sale
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-, mentioned in the sale deed. In view of
the said payment, question of limitation does not arise. Without paying
the said amount, the petitioner is trying to dispossess the respondent by
unlawful means. Hence, the respondent filed suit for injunction. The suit
filed by the respondent discloses cause of action and suit is not barred by
limitation and prayed for dismissal of I.A.No.14016 of 2015. The learned
Judge, considering the averments in the plaint, affidavit, counter affidavit
and judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, dismissed
I.A.No.14016 of 2015, holding that the plaint discloses a cause of action
and relief sought for in the plaint is not barred by limitation and as such,
the plaint does not attract any of the provisions of the Order VII Rule 11
of C.P.C., to reject the same.
4.Against the said order dated 16.03.2016, made in I.A.No.14016
of 2015 in O.S.No.833 of 2015, the petitioner has come out with the
present Civil Revision Petition.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
without seeking declaration of title, the suit filed by the respondent is not
maintainable. The respondent executed and registered a sale deed on
08.12.2011 and handed over the possession to the petitioner. The
petitioner is in possession of the suit property. The learned Judge failed
to properly consider the principles laid down in Order VII Rule 11 of
C.P.C. The learned Judge failed to consider the contradictory statement of
respondent in paragraph no.3 of the plaint, with regard to sale
consideration. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
plaint does not contain any valid points for conducting trial. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied
on the order of this Court dated 01.04.2016, made in C.R.P.(PD).No.389
of 2016 & C.M.P.No.2096 of 2016 and the relevant paragraph is
extracted as follows:
“11.The learned trial Judge, without properly
appreciating the facts and without properly applying the
principles of law regarding the rejection of plaint, chose to
arrive at an erroneous conclusion that the revision petitioners
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
failed to substantiate their case that the plaint was liable to be
rejected on the ground of absence of cause of action against the
revision petitioners as found from the plaint averments. The suit
has been filed for mere injunction to restrain the persons holding
title from developing the property and alienating or encumbering
the property. The suit has been filed by a person, who has no
privity of contract with the revision petitioners after obtaining a
sale agreement from persons, who had already barred with title
in favour of the revision petitioners. There cannot be a better
case than the present suit to be an abuse of process of court,
which can be checked by this court under its power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for even striking off the plaint.”
6.Though the respondent entered appearance through counsel,
when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for her.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
perused the entire materials available on record.
8.From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondent filed
suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction, restraining the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
petitioner, her men and agents, from interfering and dispossessing the
respondent from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
According to the respondent, she is the owner of the suit property and
she and petitioner entered into an agreement of sale to sell the suit
property for total sale consideration of Rs.1,21,21,541/-. The petitioner
paid Rs.75,00,000/- and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration
after the conclusion of the litigation pending between the respondent and
one Sankaran. Believing the said representation, the respondent executed
the sale deed, mentioning the sale consideration as Rs.75,00,000/-, but
did not hand over the possession to the petitioner. On these averments,
the respondent filed suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner is
seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose
the cause of action, barred by limitation and for bare injunction, without
declaration of title against the true owner is not maintainable. In the
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint,
the Court has to consider the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.,
averments in the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint by the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
plaintiff and only when the defendant substantiates any one of the
provisions under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., a suit can be rejected. The
contention of the defendant in the written statement or in the affidavit
filed in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and
documents relied on by the defendant cannot be taken into consideration
while deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.
The averments in the plaint has to be taken into consideration while
deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. reads 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
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law :
[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.]”
9.The respondent filed suit for permanent injunction. A reading of
the plaint as a whole discloses cause of action, as respondent has stated
that believing the words of the petitioner, she executed and registered
sale deed due to pendency of litigation between herself and Sankaran,
without receiving the entire sale consideration and did not hand over the
possession of the suit property. The respondent has also stated that she is
in possession of the suit property and petitioner is trying to dispossess
the respondent from the suit property by unlawful means. By these
averments, it cannot be said that the suit does not disclose cause of action
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
and barred by limitation. It is for the respondent to prove that she is still
in possession of suit property and petitioner is trying to dispossess the
respondent by unlawful means, without paying balance sale
consideration. Whether the suit is maintainable for not seeking relief of
declaration has to be decided only based on the evidence let in by the
parties during the trial. The same is not a criteria for rejecting the plaint
in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The facts of the
order dated 01.04.2016 made in C.R.P.(PD).No.389 of 2016 &
C.M.P.No.2096 of 2016, relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned
Judge has considered the averments in the plaint, documents filed along
with the plaint and averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and
judgments relied on by the petitioner and dismissed I.A., by giving
cogent and valid reasons. There is no error or irregularity in the order of
the learned Judge, warranting interference by this Court.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
For the above reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.09.2021
Index :: Yes/No
gsa
To
The XV Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.1300 of 2016
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
gsa
C.R.P.(PD)No.1300 of 2016
27.09.2021
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
