Madras High Court
Kalyani vs Panjavarnampillai ... 1St on 10 September, 2024
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
C.R.P.(MD)No.2150 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 10.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.2150 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.12226 of 2024
1.Kalyani
2.Amutha ... Petitioners / Petitioners 1,3 / Defendants 1,3
Vs.
1.Panjavarnampillai ... 1st Respondent / Respondent/ Plaintiff
2.Kaliammal ... 2nd Respondent / 2nd Petitioner / 2nd Defendant
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to call for the records pertaining to the decree and Judgment dated
07.11.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.30 of 2022 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District and set aside the same and
reject the plaint and pass appropriate decree and Judgment.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Anandapandiyan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.2150 of 2024
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 & 3 in O.S.No.30 of 2022
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai.
2. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 for rejection of the
plaint. It was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2023. Questioning the same,
this civil revision petition came to be filed.
3. Panjavarnampillai filed the said suit seeking declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. According to the plaintiff,
the suit property belonged to him and that he executed the settlement deed
dated 30.08.1979 in favour of his wife Maruthayee Ammal. Maruthayee Ammal
had executed the settlement deed dated 14.08.2014 in favour of her three
daughters. The settlee subsequently sold the property in favour of the fourth
defendant on 07.02.2022. The case of the plaintiff is that the settlement deed
executed in favour of Maruthayee Ammal in the year 1978 contains the
restrictive clause that she must not alienate the property. According to the
plaintiff, since the settlement deed was executed in breach of the said clause,
the settlement deed is void and as a result, the subsequent sale deed dated
07.02.2022 is also void. In I.A.No.3 of 2022, the defendants point out that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
suit property was actually purchased by Selvam who was the son of the plaintiff
born through Maruthayee Ammal vide sale deed dated 16.02.1976. Selvam
passed away in the year 1978. Therefore, the property devolved on his mother
namely Maruthayee Ammal. It is well settled that since the parties are Hindus,
father will not be a class 1 legal heir. Therefore, Maruthayee Ammal thus
became the absolute owner of the suit property in her own right following the
demise of her son Selvam. She did not derive her title from the settlement deed
executed by the plaintiff. In fact, the settlement deed dated 14.08.2014
executed in favour of D1 to D3 traces her title in the manner aforesaid. It does
not refer to the 1978 settlement deed executed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the
defendants sought rejection of the plaint. In the counter filed in I.A.No.3 of
2022, the plaintiff conceded that the property was purchased in the name of
Selvam. He would claim that Selvam was not having any economic means and
that it was he who purchased the property in the name of Selvam. But the sale
deed dated 1976 does not contain any recital to that effect. I therefore find
considerable force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioners. There has been a suppression of material fact by
the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. At the same time, I am not in a position to interfere because of a technical
reason. It has been held repeatedly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while
considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C for rejection of the
plaint, one must go only by the plaint averments. Of-course, in this case, the
stand of the defendants 1 to 3 is reinforced by sort of an admission made in the
counter filed in the IA. The question that arises for consideration is whether the
court would be justified in looking into the pleadings in the interlocutary
application. As of now, there is no precedent supporting such an approach.
Since one has to go only by the plaint averments, the Court below rightly came
to the conclusion that cause of action is apparently disclosed. I therefore
decline to interfere with the impugned order. Since the revision petitioners
have made out a formidable point, this is a case which warrants speedy
disposal. I direct the learned District Munsif, Nilakottai to dispose of O.S.No.
30 of 2022 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
The District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
