Madras High Court
P.Ramasamy (Died) vs Pappayee Ammal @ Periyammal on 19 September, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11803 of 2017
1. P.Ramasamy (Died)
2. Pitchaiammal
3. Thangamani ... Petitioners/
Defendants 1 to 3
(Memo filed in USR No.5308 dated 23.02.2022 is
recorded as 1st petitioner died and 2 & 3 petitioners
who are already on record are recorded as LRS of
the deceased 1st petitioner vide Court order dated
10.03.2022 made in CRP(MD)No.2513 of 2017)
Vs.
1. Pappayee Ammal @ Periyammal
2. Saraswathi
3. Sekar @ Chandrasekaran ... 1 to 3 Respondents/
Plaintiffs
4. The District Collector
District Collectorate
Collectorate Post
Karur, Karur District
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
5.The Thasildar
Office of Manmangalam Taluk
Manmangalam Post & Taluk
Karur District
6. Firka Surveyor (Vangal Firka)
Office of the Village Administrative Officer
Velur Road, Vangal Post
Manmangalam Taluk
and also at
Survey Section
Office of Manmangalam Taluk
Manmangalam, Karur District
7. The Inspector of Police
Vangal Police Station
Vangal & Post
Manmangalam Taluk
Karur District
8. The Sub-Inspector of Police
Vangal Police Station
Vangal & Post
Manmangalam Taluk
Karur District ... 4 to 8 Respondents/
4 to 8 Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the original suit in
O.S.No.34 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,
Karur and strike off the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran
For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For R4 to R8 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the
plaint in O.S.No.34 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Munsif
Court, Karur.
2. The petitioners herein are the defendants 1 to 3, the respondents
1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondents 4 to 8 herein are the
defendants 4 to 8 before the Court below.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per
the litigative status before the trial Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 3 would
submit that the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2017 is a clear abuse of process of
law, and that the same is a re-litigation, as the suit filed in O.S.No.804 of
2002 between the same parties, in respect of the same properties, and
also in respect of the declaration of the sale deed dated 06.08.1993,
which is bound by Article 56 of the Limitation Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs
would submit that, though they moved a suit at a later point of time i.e.,
after 3 years from the date, when they first came to know about the
document viz., sale deed dated 06.08.1993, against which a declaration is
sought, the suit is maintainable, and also it is the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that not withstanding the
maintainability of the relief of declaration on account of limitation, the
very revision petition, in respect of the other relief qua injunction cannot
be sustained, as the impugned suit involves question of law and facts.
Hence, he prayed to dismiss the instant revision petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side
submissions.
7. The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 3 is that, the first prayer in
O.S.No.34 of 2017 qua the declaration against the sale deed dated
06.08.1993, in respect of B schedule property, as null and void is hit by
Article 56 of the Limitation Act. For ready reference the Article 56 of the
Limitation Act is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
Section Description of suit Period of Time from which
limitation period begins to run
56. To declare the forgery of an Three When the issue or
instrument issued or registered. years registration becomes
known to the plaintiff.
8. According to the Article 56 of the Limitation Act, cause of
action to file suit arose within 3 years, when the right to sue accrues, qua
from the date of knowledge. Apparently, on the face of it, the 3 years
period ends on 06.08.1996. But after careful perusal of the Article, it
gives liberty to the plaintiffs to move suit within 3 years from the date
when the registration becomes known to the plaintiffs. However, this
Court, while carefully reading the plaint, finds that, in none of the place,
the plaintiffs have pleaded about, as to when they came to know about
the existence of the sale deed dated 06.08.1993. Therefore, it is apparent
that they were aware about the existence of the document from the date
of the inception. That is why they did not mention about any date for
their knowledge, in their plaint.
9. Hence, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the defendants 1 to 3, on the face of it, the first prayer in O.S.No.34 of
2017 is hit by Article 56 of the Limitation Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
10. Coming to the prayers 2 and 3 qua in respect of the permanent
injunction against A and B schedule properties, the learned counsel
appearing for the defendants 1 to 3 would invite the attention of this
Court in respect of the decree passed in O.S.No.804 of 2002, which is
filed along with additional typed set of papers. This Court perused the
decree passed in O.S.No.804 of 2002. From the careful perusal of the
same, the said suit was instituted by one Ramasamy, who is none other
than the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2017, against
Pappayee Ammal, Shanmuga Sundaram, Chandrasekaran and Saraswathi.
Among them, admittedly, Pappayee Ammal, Saraswathi and
Chandrasekaran are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.34 of 2017. Therefore, this
Court is satisfied that the earlier suit in O.S.No.804 of 2002 was between
the same parties. Lastly, the Court has perused the description of the
property in both the suits. Admittedly, the description of property of both
the suit are one and same. Though in the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2017, they
have arrived at as A and B schedule properties, the 'B' schedule property
is only a right to drew water. But both A and B schedule properties of
O.S.No.34 of 2017 were shown as single suit property in O.S.No.804 of
2002. Therefore, it is apparent and obvious that the suit in O.S.No.804 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
2002, and the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2017 are between the same parties and
in respect of the same properties.
11. At this juncture, for ready reference this Court deems it
appropriate to extract the decree passed in O.S.No.804 of 2002 as
follows:
“1. jhth nrhj;jpy; thjp nfhz;bUf;Fk;
mikjpahd RthjPdj;jpYk;> J}Lg;gpYk;>
gpujpthjpfNsh> mth;fsJ Ml;fNsh> my;yJ
mth;fs; jug;gpy; Nth; vtNuDk;>
jiyapl;L ,ilQ;ry; nra;af; $lhJ vd;w jil
nra;J thjpf;F epue;ju cWj;Jf; fl;lis ghpfhuk;
toq;fp cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.
2. gpujpthjp thjpf;F jhth nryT njhif
&.712/- I nfhLf;f cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.
nrhj;Jtpguk;
f&h;.hp.b.> [hapd;l; 2 rg;.hp.b.> f&h; jhYf;fh>
Fg;Gr;rpghisak; fpuhkk; m.G.r. 535 ne. V.7.87y;
ey;yg;gd; g+kpf;F fpof;F> re;jpuNrfud; g+kpf;F
tlf;F> ghg;ghap mk;khs; g+kpf;F Nkw;F> fpoNky;
Nuhl;bw;Fk; njw;F> njd; kj;jpapy; V.1.00 ,e;j
tp];jPh;zKs;s g+kpAk;> Nkw;gb g+kpapd;
fPo;Gwj;jpYk; Nky;Gwj;jpYk; njd;tly; thpirahf
cs;s njd;id kuq;fs; kw;Wk; fd;Wfs;> rhiyf;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
nfhl;lif> kpd; ,izg;G 566 rfpjKk;> Nkw;gb
g+kpapy; eLg;GwKs;s fpzw;wpy; gq;Fg;gb 4y; 1
gq;F ghj;jpaKk;> Nkw;gb Nkw;gb fpzw;wpy;
mike;Js;s 5 vr;.gp. kpd; Nkhl;lhh; gk;g; nrl;
nrl;bYk; 4y; 1 gq;F ghj;jpaKk;> Nkw;gb fpzh;
[yj;ij Nkw;gb kpd; Nkhl;lhh; %yk;
jz;zPh; ,iwj;J gha;r;rpf; nfhs;Sk; ghj;jpaKk;>
fTh;fs; fz;zhh; Jiy> ghrt fTh; fz;zhh;
topAk; ,witj; JiyapypUe;J tUk; rpnkd;l;
Foha; %yk; ghrt ghj;jpaKk;> Nkw;gb g+kpf;F
tlGwk; ey;yFkhuk;ghisak;> NghFk; fpoNky;
Nuhl;bypUe;J Neh; njw;fpy; ele;J nfhs;Sk;
ghj;jpaKk; $ba rfpjk; g+uhTk;> Nkw;gb g+kpf;F
ghGyh; Kjypahh; tha;f;fhy; jz;zPiuAk; gha;r;rpf;
nfhs;s Ntz;baJ. v];;.vz;.361y; thjpf;F
ghj;jpag;gl;l jdpf; fpzw;wpypUe;J
ey;yFkhuk;ghisak; NghFk; Nuhl;L Xukhf
g+kpf;fbapy; Gijf;fg;gl;Ls;s igg; iyd; %yk;
jz;zPh; ,iwj;J jhth nrhj;jpw;F gha;r;rg;gl;L
tUk; ghrdk; ghj;jpak; rfpjk;.”
12. As per the above decree, in favour of the first defendant in
O.S.No.34 of 2017, a decree of injunction was granted, against the
plaintiffs of the instant suit. When there is an injunction against the
plaintiffs, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
defendants 1 to 3, they are not entitled to file any subsequent suit, with
illusory cause of action by using ingenuity of pleadings. In this regard,
the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 3 relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1977 STPL 3190 SC
(T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another). The relevant portion
of the judgment is as follows:
“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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
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."
6. The trial court in this case will remind itself of s.
35-A C.P.C. and take deterrent action if it is satisfied that
the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and
altogether groundless. In any view, that suit has no survival
value and should be disposed of forthwith after giving an
immediate hearing to the parties concerned.
7. We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the
learned Judge of the High-Court by a callous party. We
more than regret the circumstance that the party concerned
has been able to prevail upon one lawyer or the other to
present to the court a case which was disingenuous or
worse. It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of
justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous
litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. And
remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice he
owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions. The
Bar Council of India, we hope will activate this obligation.
We are constrained to make these observations and hope
that the co-operation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming
to the Bench for spending judicial time on worthwhile
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
disputes and avoiding the distraction of sham litigation such
as the one we are disposing of. Another moral of this
unrighteous chain litigation is the gullible grant of ex parte
orders tempts gamblers in litigation into easy courts. A
judge who succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases
helps devalue the judicial process. We must appreciate Shri
Ramasesh for his young candour and correct advocacy.”
13. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 3 has
also relied yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in (2012) 5 MLJ 601 (SC) (Church of Christ Charitable Trust &
Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman Vs.
Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its
Chairperson/Managing Trustee), and the relevant portion of the
judgment is as follows:
6) Since the appellant herein, as the first defendant
before the trial Judge, filed application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground
that it does not show any cause of action against him, at the
foremost, it is useful to refer the relevant provision: Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code:
“11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be
rejected in the following cases:—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
(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 so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in
the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
provision of Rule 9:
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 for 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.” It is
clear from the above that where the plaint does not disclose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not
corrected within the time allowed by the Court, insufficiently
stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the Court,
barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and
the plaintiff fail to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the
Court has no other option except to reject the same. A
reading of the above provision also makes it clear that
power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised
at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or
after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any
time before the conclusion of the trial. This position was
explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai & Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, in which, while
considering Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as
under:
“9. A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 CPC makes
it clear that the relevant facts which need to be
looked into for deciding an application
thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The
trial court can exercise the power under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit —
before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before
the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of
deciding an application under clauses (a) and
(d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, the averments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by
the defendant in the written statement would be
wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a
direction to file the written statement without
deciding the application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity
touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial
court…….” It is clear that in order to consider
Order VII Rule 11, the Court has to look into
the averments in the plaint and the same can be
exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the
suit. It is also clear that the averments in the
written statement are immaterial and it is the
duty of the Court to scrutinize the
averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words,
what needs to be looked into in deciding such
an application are the averments in the plaint.
At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant
in the written statement are wholly irrelevant
and the matter is to be decided only on the
plaint averments. These principles have been
reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs.
Ganesh Property (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar
(H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties,
Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others (2006)
3 SCC 100.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
7) It is also useful to refer the judgment in
T.Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 467,
wherein while considering the very same provision, i.e.
Order VII Rule 11 and the duty of the trial Court in
considering such application, this Court has reminded the
trial Judges with the following observation:
“5. ……….The learned Munsif must remember
that if on a meaningful – for 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 VII, Rule 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 Courts would insist imperatively on
examining the party at the first hearing so that
bogus litigation can be shot down at the
earliest stage. The Penal Code is also
resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr.XI)
and must be triggered against them…..” It is
clear that if the allegations are vexatious and
meritless and not disclosing a clear right or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
material(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial
Judge to exercise his power under Order VII
Rule 11. If clever drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action as observed by
Krishna Iyer J., in the above referred decision,
it should be nipped in the bud at the first
hearing by examining the parties under Order
X of the Code.”
......
21) In the light of the above discussion, in view of the
shortfall in the plaint averments, statutory provisions,
namely, Order VII Rule 11, Rule 14(1) and Rule 14(2), Form
Nos. 47 and 48 in Appendix A of the Code which are
statutory in nature, we hold that the learned single Judge of
the High Court has correctly concluded that in the absence
of any cause of action shown as against the 1st defendant,
the suit cannot be proceeded either for specific performance
or for the recovery of money advanced which according to
the plaintiff was given to the 2nd defendant in the suit and
rightly rejected the plaint as against the 1st defendant.
Unfortunately, the Division bench failed to consider all
those relevant aspects and erroneously reversed the decision
of the learned single Judge. We are unable to agree with the
reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
14. From the careful reading of the above ratios, what emerges is
that if on a meaningful and on a formal reading of the plaint, if the Court
finds that the suit is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, such suit can be
rejected at any point of time from the file of the Court. From the forgoing
discussion, the prayer in respect of the declaration is barred by limitation
under Article 56 of the Limitation Act.
15. Similarly, the 2nd and 3rd relief, namely, injunction in respect of
A and B schedule property has already been adjudicated by the Court
below in O.S.No.804 of 2002. Wherein as stated supra, the first
defendant P.Ramasamy was granted injunction against the plaintiffs.
Therefore, after suffered decree, without referring about any of the earlier
suit, filing a new suit for the same relief, would indubitably abuse of
process of law. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the suit in
O.S.No.34 of 2017 is liable to be struck off. Even inspite of the above
fact, if the defendant is permitted to contest the suit and to suffer the
process of trial is against all cannons of law. Therefore, this Court deems
it appropriate to strike off of the plaint in O.S.No.34 of 2017 from the file
of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
16. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and
the plaint in O.S.No.34 of 2017 pending in the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Karur, is ordered to be struck off. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
19.09.2023
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
csm
To
1. The Additional District Munsif Court,
Karur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
csm
ORDER MADE IN
C.R.P.(MD)No.2513 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11803 of 2017
Dated : 19.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
