Madras High Court
S.Thamaraiselvi vs R.Anantharaman on 21 December, 2023
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
C.R.P(PD)No.4055 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.12.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.4055 of 2019
1.S.Thamaraiselvi
2.Y.Sarguna
3.K.Jayabalaji ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.R.Anantharaman
2.R.Harikrishnan
3.R.Vivekanandan
4.R.Vijayasimman
5.R.Gokularajan
6.V.Bharathi … Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India praying to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of
rejection of plaint dated 12.09.2019 made in unnumbered suit in
O.S.Sr.No.3124 of 2019 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur consequently directs the Hon'ble Munsif
Court, Sriperumbudur to number the plaint.
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.4055 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vinoth
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.A.P.Pasupathy
for Mr.K.Raju
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to allow the Civil Revision
Petition and set aside the order of rejection of plaint dated 12.09.2019 made
in unnumbered suit in O.S.Sr.No.3124 of 2019 on the file of District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur consequently directs the
Hon'ble Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur to number the plaint.
2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the suit schedule property is an ancestral joint
family property and originally belonged to one Krishnapillai and his son
Govindarajulu pillai. Later, the said Govindarajulu pillai and his three sons
had entered into a partition and the same was registered before the Sub-
Registrar Office, Sriperumbudur as document No.2346 of 1972 dated
25.09.1972. Further, the suit schedule property and other properties were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
allotted as D schedule to one Kannan, who is one of the sons of aforesaid
Govindarajalu pillai and father of the revision petitioners. After the demise
of G.Kannan, his legal heirs, who is the revision petitioners herein have
entered the property to do some work on 07.07.2019 and it was objected by
the respondents, who are the legal heirs of G.Ranganatha Pillai stating that
they are in possession of the property by virtue of the sale deed executed by
late G.Kannan in favour of the respondents' father G. Ranganatha Pillai vide
document No.9877 of 1983 dated 23.11.1983 on the file of Sub Registrar
Office, Sriperumbudur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the sale
deed document was executed in the year 1983 and at that point of time, the
revision petitioners were minors and the said document was executed by their
father, who is the natural guardian in favour of the respondents' father
G.Ranganathan Pillai. Thereafter, on 26.08.2019, the revision petitioners
have filed an unnumbered suit in O.S.Sr.No.3124 of 2019, to declare the sale
deed dated 23.11.1983 registered as document No.9877 of 1983 on the file of
the Sub Registrar Office, Sriperumbudur as null and void and for permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
injunction and restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbadur has returned the plaint by issuing the
following order dated 12.09.2019. For better appreciation, the said order is
extracted hereunder:
“As per the Section 60 of the Limitation Act, a minor
when attains majority, from the date of attaining the majority
within three years he or she will have to question any property
transaction executed during their minority by his or her
guardian. The plaintiffs 1 to 3, who were 16 years, 14 years
and 12 years respectively as on the date of execution of the said
sale deed and they have not filed the suit within three years
from the date of attaining the majority. Further, the plaintiffs
have not submitted any documents to show that they are in
continuous possession of the suit property till date, even after
the execution of the sale deed in 1983. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are
now 52, 50 and 47 years old respectively as per the plaint
averment. Since the sale deed having been executed in the year
1983, it is unacceptable that the possession of the property were
not given to the purchasers therein and is with the plaintiffs till
date and without any documents to support the same.
Though the plaintiffs claim that they came to know about
the sale transanction only on verification of the encumbrance
certificate on 12.07.2019 and 18.07.2019 as per the section 60
of limitation act, the period of limitation runs from the date of
attaining majority and not from the date of knowledge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Considering the above, this suit is rejected as barred by
limitation.”
Aggrieved over by the aforesaid order dated 12.09.2019, the petitioner has
come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the revision petitioners have to file a suit to declare the sale deed
document No.9877 of 1983 as null and void and not for suit for declaration.
Moreover, the revision petitioners attempted to overturn the validly executed
sale deed dated 23.11.1983 in favour of the father of the respondents herein
on the ground that such sale deed has been executed without any legal
necessity and it deprived the share of the minor revision petitioners. The
Trial Court has also rendered a specific findings that the age of the revision
petitioners were 16, 14 and 12 years at the time of execution of the sale deed
dated 22.11.1983 and if at all, they ought to have filed a suit in the year 1990
when all of them attained the majority however, the present suit is filed in the
year 2019 i.e., after 29 years. At this stage, the revision petitioners cannot be
permitted to set the clock back.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would further submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that from the year 1983, the father of the respondents and the respondents
were in possession of the suit property and other properties mentioned in the
sale deed document No.9877 of 1983 and the father of the respondents had
developed and maintained the suit property and other properties and paid the
property tax properly.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would further submit
that if a suit of this nature is entertained, it would undoubtedly set a wrong
precedent that any one who has a vexatious interest would be embolden to
file such a suit to harass the other side to make the justice delivery system a
mockery. In the sale deed it would indicate that there is a specific recital that
the suit property was sold in favour of respondents' father for a family
necessity. In any event, after 29 years from the date of attaining majority, the
revision petitioners cannot be permitted to maintain a present suit. He further
submitted that the present suit is hit by the provisions of Article 58 and 60 of
the Limitation Act.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1782 of
2019 in the case of Murugan & Others Vs., Kesava Gounder (ded) and
their legal heirs and others.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
9. In the case on hand, the suit was filed by the revision petitioners to
declare the sale deed document No.9877 of 1983 dated 23.11.1983 as null
and void, which was executed by their father namely late G.Kannan in favour
of the respondents father namely late G.Ranganathan Pillai on the file of Sub
Registrar Office, Sriperumbudur. When the sale deed was executed all the
revision petitioners were minors and they are of the age 16, 14 and 12
respectively. Further, the revision petitioners have attained the age of
majority in the year 1986 and on the date of filing the said suit, the age of the
revision petitioners are 52, 50 and 47 respectively. At this juncture, it is
pertinent to extract Section 60 of the Limitation Act and the same is reads as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
follows:
Section 60 of the Limitation Act:
Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period
beings to run
60. To set aside a
transfer of property
made by the guardian of
a ward—
(a) by the ward who has Three years When the ward attains
attained majority majority
(b) by the ward's legal
representative-
(I) when the ward dies Three years When the ward attains
within three years from majority
the date of attaining
majority.
(ii) when the ward dies Three years When the ward dies
before attaining majority
10. According to the above provision, a minor when attains majority,
from the date of attaining the majority within three years he or she will have
to question any property transaction executed during his or her minority by
his or her natural guardian. On relying the above provision, the Trial Court
has rightly rejected the plaint dated 26.08.2019 filed by the revision
petitioners and as per the Trial Court order dated 12.09.2019, there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence to substantiate the claim of the revision petitioners that they are in
possession of the suit schedule property.
11. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint on the
following grounds:
(i) as per the Section 60 of the Limitation Act, the suit has to be filed
within a period of three years from the date of attaining majority i.e., in the
year 1986.
(ii) no documents to prove that they are in possession of the suit
schedule property.
(iii) the sale deed document is of the year 1983 and it is not believable
and they are still in possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit
on 26.08.2019 that is after 29 years.
(iv) the revision petitioners came to know about the sale deed only
while obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate dated 12.07.2019 and
18.07.2019 is also not acceptable to the Court.
12. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rightly rejected the plaint filed by the revision petitioners.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by this Court in support of their contentions, whereas, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1782 of
2019 in the case of Murugan & Others Vs., Kesava Gounder (dead) and
their legal heirs and others. In the above judgment, it was held as follows:
“29. The Limitation Act, 1963 has been enacted by the
Parliament after the enactment of Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956. Article 60 of the limitation act, 1963
which provides for limitation “suits relating to decrees and
instruments”. The limitation act contemplates suit to set aside a
transfer of property made by the guardian award for which, the
limitation has contemplated as three years. Article 60 of the
limitation Act also provides for the limitation of a suit but also
clearly indicates that to set aside a transfer of the property
made by the guardian of a ward a suit is contemplated.”
14. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the order of rejection of the plaint dated 12.09.2019 passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur.
15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
21.12.2023
vm
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
vm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
