Madras High Court
M.Arulayee vs R.Gopalakrishnan on 7 April, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.900 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.900 of 2025
1.M.Arulayee
2. P.Deepika
3. M.Sathishkumar
4. R.Jothika ... Petitioners/Petitioners
Vs.
1. R.Gopalakrishnan
2. G.Arunkumar
3. P.Murugesan ... Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of
India, to set aside against the fair and decretal order dated 03.02.2025 made in
Unnumbered O.S.No..... of 2024 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge,
Srivilliputtur and allow the above Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Venkatesan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 07:18:01 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.900 of 2025
ORDER
The plaintiffs in Unnumbered O.S.No..... of 2024 on the file of the
Principal Sub Court, Srivilliputtur, have filed the present Civil Revision
Petition challenging the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court before
numbering the same.
2. The first plaintiff's husband and father of the other three plaintiffs
namely, Muthukumar had entered into a sale agreement with the first
defendant on 14.02.2016. As per the sale agreement, the entire sale
consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) has been paid by the
purchasers and the vendor had agreed to execute the sale deed within a period
of one year i.e., on or before 14.02.2017. The agreement holder namely,
Muthukumar had passed away on 22.05.2016.
3. The first defendant, who is the owner of the property had executed a
sale deed with regard to a portion of the property in favour of the third
defendant on 10.06.2021. With regard to the balance portion of the property,
the first defendant has executed a settlement deed in favour of his son,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 07:18:01 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.900 of 2025
namely, second defendant, on 08.07.2021. After coming to know about the
execution of the sale deed and the settlement deed, the plaintiffs have lodged
a police complaint on 04.09.2022 and an F.I.R has also been registered. The
plaintiffs have issued the suit notice on 17.12.2022 and they have filed the
present suit on 08.12.2024.
4. The trial Court, has proceeded to reject the plaint primarily on the
ground that the suit for specific performance and the prayer for declaration of
the sale deed and settlement deed are barred by limitation. Challenging the
said order, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners, they came to know about the alienation and the settlement deed
executed by the first defendant only in the year 2022 and immediately they
have lodged a police complaint. From the date of knowledge, the suit has
been filed within a period of three years and hence, the suit is not barred by
limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 07:18:01 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.900 of 2025
6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has also
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019-1-
L.W 559 (Urvashiben and another Vs.Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi).
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and
perused the materials available on record.
8. As far as the prayer for specific performance is concerned, it is
governed by Section 54 of Limitation Act. In case if a date is fixed for
performance, the suit has to be filed within a period of three years from such
date. All other cases where no date is fixed, it should be filed within a period
of three years from the date on which the plaintiffs have come to notice that
the performance is refused. In the present case, though date is fixed for
performance, the plaintiffs have already paid the entire sale consideration and
there is nothing to be performed on their part. In such circumstances, the
Court has to consider whether the period of limitation has to be considered
under the first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act or under the second
limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it will be a matter of trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 07:18:01 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.900 of 2025
9. As far as the other prayer relating to declaration of two documents as
null and void are concerned, the plaintiffs are not parties to the documents.
According to them, they came to know about these documents only in
September 2022 and immediately they lodged a police complaint. The suit
has been filed on 08.12.2024, admittedly, within a period of three years from
the said date. Therefore, the trial Court has to consider the fact whether the
plaintiff had knowledge from the date of these two documents or only in
September 2022. It is also a matter of trial. In such circumstances, the plaint
cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
10. In view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the revision
petition is set aside. The trial Court is directed to number the suit, if it is
otherwise in order and proceed in accordance with law, without being
influenced by any one of the observations made by this Court in this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 07:18:01 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.900 of 2025
11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
07.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Principal Sub Judge,
Srivilliputtur.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 07:18:01 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.900 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 07:18:01 pm )
