Madras High Court
Murugaiyan vs M.Ramalaingam on 29 January, 2025
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 11.12.2024
Pronounced on 29.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P.(MD) No. 2242 of 2024 and
CMP(MD).No.12692 of 2024
Murugaiyan ... Petitioner / 1st defendant
rep. by power of attorney
L.Hiriharan
Vs.
M.Ramalaingam .. Respondent / plaintiff
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order and decreetal order, dated 06.07.2024 passed in
I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsiff,
Pattukkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.L.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.R. Abdul Mubeen
*****
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and
decreetal order, dated 06.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
75 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsiff, Pattukkottai.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the first defendant and the
respondent herein is the plaintiff in the above suit. For sake of
convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial
Court.
3. The respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit in O.S.No.75 of
2021 before the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai for declaring the sale
deed, dated 26.11.1981 registered as document No.115 of 1981 as null
and void in respect of the suit property and not binding on the plaintiff.
Further, to grant the relief of permanent injunction restraining the first
defendant and his men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff is
that the suit properties and other extents originally belong to one
Rajagopal Naidu. The said Rajagopal had right only in 31 Cents out of
the total extent of 44 Cents in S.No.65B/5A. The said Rajagopal during
his life time had executed a registered Will, dated 26.06.1948 in respect of
the above 31 Cents. As per the recital of the said Will the Testator had
given life estate in favour of his wife Aandal ammal. After the life time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
said Aandal Ammal the said properties devolved among their two
daughters namely, Krishnammbal and Radharukumani. The said
krishnammal is the mother of the plaintiff herein. Subsequently, the said
Rajagopal died leaving behind his legal heirs. Soon after his death, the
said Will dated, 26.06.1948 came into force. Thereafter, the said Aandal
ammal was enjoying the said properties. She died on 24.10.11972 and as
per the terms of the Will the suit property devolved equally among
Krishnambal and Radharukmani. Whereby, they had become the absolute
owners of the suit property. The plaintiff submits that there is a sale
deed, dated 29.01.1972 as if the said Radharukmani along with her
children and Krishnambal along with the plaintiff herein had jointly sold
13 ¼ cents out of 31 Cents and the remaining 18 cents was in possession
and enjoyment of Radharukmani and Krishnambal. The said
Radharukkumani filed a suit for partition in respect of 9 cents in S.No.
65B/5A and other properties by claiming ½ share against the Krishnambal
and others before Sub Court, Thanjavur. The suit was numbered as
O.S.No.45 of 1974. The said suit was decreed on 30.01.1975.
Thereafter, a final decree application was filed and the said application
was numbered as I.A.No.972 of 1978 and final decree was passed on
21.08.1979. On 19.01.1981, the said Radharukmani sold her 9 cents in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
S.No.65B/5A to the 1st defendant's mother. Originally, Radharukmani
has got title over 9 Cents in S.No.65B/5A, but, due to oversight she had
wrongly mentioned the extent of the suit property as 9 cents instead of 18
Cents in O.S.No.45 of 1974 and as per the Judgment passed in the said
suit, she got right over 4 ½ cents only in S.No.65B/5A, however, the
plaintiff is not claiming any right in the remaining extent of 4 ½ cents.
The plaintiff submits that the said Radharukmani has no right over the
remaining 9 cents (¼ share of Krishnammal) in the S.No.65B /5A because
she had already sold her 9 cents to 1st defendant's mother on 19.01.1981.
The said Radharukumani with an intention to grab the suit properties from
Krishnambal fabricated a forged sale deed, dated 26.12.1981 in favour of
the 1st defendant's mother in respect of 6 Cents out of 9 Cents belonging
to Krishnambal. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only
in July, 2019. The property in the sale deed dated 26.12.1981 is the suit
property, which is a vacant site. The said forged sale deed is void and the
same will not bind the plaintiff. After the death of said Krishnambal, the
plaintiff is in enjoyment of the said 9 cents and thereafter, he sold 2 ¾
cents out of it to one Jayaraman on 18.11.2019. The remaining 6 ¼ cents
is in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in lawful enjoyment of
the suit property without any disturbance. Even though the forged sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
deed dated 26.12.1981 stands in the name of the 1st defendant, the
possession of the suit property is with the plaintiff. On 21.02.2021, the 1st
defendant and his men came to the suit property and attempted to
tresspass into the same. Hence, the suit.
4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant it is stated
that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. The suit had been filed to
declare the sale deed which had been registered on 26.12.1981 and the
document is a public document. Therefore, the suit ought to have been
filed within a period of three years from the date of registration. But, it has
been filed after four decades. Even in the plaint it is not mentioned as to
when and how the plaintiff was aware of the sale deed, dated 26.12.1981
registered in the name of this defendant's mother. The date mentioned in
the plaint is only imaginary and invented only to circumvent the law of
limitation. It is stated that the said Radharukmani filed a suit seeking for
partition against her sister and others in O.S.No.45 of 1974 on the file of
the Sub Court, Thanjavur in respect of the larger extent including the suit
property. The said suit was in respect of the Eastern side of the entire
property measuring to an extent of Acre 0.09 Cents in S.No.65/B/5A and
that the suit was decreed on 30.01.1975. Subsequent to the preliminary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
decree, the plaintiff therein filed an application in I.A.No.972 of 1978 for
final decree and an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed, who
inspected the property and submitted his report along with plan. In
pursuant to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the leaned
Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, by his order, dated 21.08.1979 has passed
the final decree. The said order is that the plaintiff be allotted AJIH
portion excepting the tiled house and the appurtenant vacant site together
measuring 57 feet North to South and 18-1/2 Feet East to West, which
was allotted to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff in the above suit
is not the only owner of the property with respect to the tiled house and
the appurtenant vacant site measuring 57 feet North to South and 18 ½
feet East to West. Therefore, the other defendants in the above suit are
also necessary parties in the present suit. The said Radharukmani had
executed a registered sale deed in favour of Rajammal on 26.12.1981 in
Document No.56 fo 1981 for an extent measuring Acre 0.09 Cents. As
per the sale deed the purchaser Rajammal was in possession and
enjoyment of the property and subsequently, there was a family partition
between Rajammal and others by a registered partition deed, dated
12.03.1986 in Document No.659 of 1986 on the file of the Joint Sub
Registrar, Pattukkottai. In the said partition, the suit property fell into the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
share of the first defendant. This deed of partition had not been
challenged in the present suit. It is absolutely false to state that the
contention that the suit had been filed only for Acre 0.09 Cents in S.No.
65B/5A. The contention that the said Radharukmani is entitled only for 4
½ cents is not correct. The owner of the property had executed the sale
deed in favour of Rajammal and the same had been lawfully registered
with the registering authority and acted upon. Therefore, the contention
that the said document is a forged document is un-sustainable in the eye of
law. The fact remains that in the final decree application the Advocate
Commissioner had been appointed. He had visited the suit schedule
mentioned property and prepared the plan which had been annexed along
with his report and formed part of the final decree. In the said plan the
measurement with respect to AJIH is 6815 Sq.Ft. Which is equal to Acre
0.15.64 Cents. The trial Court while passing the final decree was
conscious enough in granting the extent to the plaintiff therein as AJIH
excepting the titled house and the appurtenant vacant site together
measuring 57 feet North to South and 18-1/2 feet East to West to the
defendants and the same has become final. The present suit filed by the
plaintiff is a re-litigation of the earlier suit for partition granted by the
competent Civil Court and the same is abuse of process of court and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
same has to be dismissed. The contention that the vendor to the 1st
defendant's mother viz., Radharukmani in view to grab the property
belonging to her sister had executed the sale deed, is not true and correct.
The fact remains that even during the lifetime of of Krishnammal the sale
deed was not been challenged. Now after a period of 40 years of the
execution of the sale deed, the present suit is filed which is not
maintainable and as such liable to be dismissed. Even during the life time
of the plaintiff's mother the sale deed was executed and the possession had
been passed to the defendant's mother. It is absolutely incorrect for the
plaintiff to content that Krishnammal was enjoying her share of nine cents
and died intestate on 13.09.1997 for the simple reason that by a final
decree, dated 21.08.1979 the Sub Court, Thanjavur had put on
Rahdarukumani into possession of the property excepting the tiled house
along with the appurtenant land measuring 57 feet North to South and 18
½ feet East to West, therefore, the mother of the plaintiff could not have
been in possession of the entire property as contended by the plaintiff
herein. The plaintiff is called to prove that he was in possession of the
nine cents. Even to substantiate that he was in possession of the property
no contemporary revenue and municipal records had been filed along with
the plaint. The plaintiff was not in possession of the property described in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
the suit schedule. The predecessor in title of this defendant of this suit
property viz., Rajammal is a bonafide purchaser for value and has been in
possession for more than 12 years, and this defendant has obtained title
and possession to the suit property under a partition deed between him
and his mother Rajammal and others. The recitals found in the sale deeds
obtained by Rajammal from Radha Rukmaniammal the owner of the suit
property would show that there was a execution petition in E.P.No.80 of
1980 in O.S.No.45 of 2974 and delivery of the suit property was made by
the Court to Radharukmani on 24.09.1980 and ever since, the said
Rajammal was in possession of the property and thereafter, the defendant
is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and thereby perfected
title to the property. Hence, the plaintiff has no title or possession over
the property. There is no cause of action for the suit and prays for
dismissal of the suit.
6. Pending suit, the first defendant took out an application in
I.A.No.2 of 2023 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC to reject the
plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and
the suit is barred by limitation. The contention of the first defendant in
the above application is that the sale deed, dated 26.12.1981 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
registered before the Joint II Sub Registrar, Pattukkottai even on
26.12.1981 and therefore, the date of knowledge is deemed to be on the
said date. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. The further
contention of the first defendant is that it has been accepted by the mother
of the plaintiff that the property available was only 0.9 cents and the same
has been partitioned by a decree of the Court and therefore, there is no
cause of action for filing the above suit.
7. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application by
stating that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law
and the same has to be gone into only at the time of trial.
8. Assailing the said order, the first defendant has preferred the
present revision.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / first
defendant would submit that under Article 56 of the Limitation Act,
within three years from the date of registration of the sale deed, the suit
ought to have been filed. It is further submitted that by virtue of the
decree passed in the suit in O.S.No.49 of 1974 filed by Radha Rukkumani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
for partition in respect of the remaining extent of the eastern side
measuring Acre 0.9 cents, the present suit is not maintainable without
challenging the said decree. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file
the present suit. It is further submitted that the plaintiff himself sold a
portion of property on 18.11.2019 based on the decree obtained in
O.S.No.45 of 1974, dated 30.01.1975. Therefore, he cannot now claim
that the above suit in O.S.No.75 of 1974 is a partial partition. It is further
submitted that the contention of the plaintiff that there was no partition
between Radha Rukkumani and Krishnammal in respect of the remaining
0.9 Cents and it was jointly enjoyed by them and therefore, the sale deed
executed by Radha Rukkumani ammal on 26.12.1985 is null and void is
incorrect. In fact the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in respect of 2.50
cents in S.No.65/B/5A. This would establish the fact that the plaintiff had
the knowledge of the sale deed executed by the said Radha
Rukkumaniammal in favour of the mother of the first defendant on
26.12.1981 and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by
limitation.
10. The learned counsel would further submit that, the Court while
considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, finds the suit to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
be manifestly vexatious, not disclosing any right to sue, it would be
justified in exercising power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In the
absence of any averment in the plaint that the suit is within time, the
plaintiff would fail. He would further contend that whenever document is
registered, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed
knowledge. His further contention is that the present suit is not only
barred by limitation, but also barred by principles of re-litigations. The
learned counsel submits that the trial Court has not taken into
consideration of the above fact erroneously dismissed the application filed
by the first defendant which calls for interference by this Court. In
support of his contention relied on the following Judgments:
1. 2013-2-L.W.84 (R.Arumugam Vs. P.R.Palanisamy and
another)
2. 2020 (1) MLJ 503 (Commissioner of Bishop, Thoothukudi
and others Vs. R.Ayyamperumal Nadar and others)
3. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Civil
Appeal No.522 of 1979, dated 20.10.1994 (Ramti Devi (smt)
Vs. Union of India)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
11. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondent /
plaintiff submitted that it is clearly stated in the plaint that, the sale deed
executed by the said Radha Rukkumani came to the knowledge of the
plaintiff only in July 2019. Only at the time of trial, the plaintiff can
establish the fact that through whom the execution of the sale deed came
to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit is filed within the
period of limitation. It is further submitted that the contention of the first
defendant that, after passing of final decree in O.S.No.45 of 1974, dated
28.01.1979 the remaining 0.9 cents was not in possession and enjoyment
of the plaintiff and his mother is in correct cannot be accepted. The suit
property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the same can
be established only at the time of trial. His further submission is that the
suit property mentioned in O.S.No.45 of 1974 is different from the present
suit property. The present suit is filed for the remaining 0.9 Cents and
therefore, the contention of the first defendant that the suit is barred by the
principles of resjudicata and that there is no cause of action for filing the
present suit is in correct. The learned counsel would submit that, whether
a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially question of fact
and the same must be found out from the reading of the plaint itself. A
cause of action is a bundle of fact which are required to be pleaded and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. In view of
the above principles, the Court on the basis of the averments made in the
plaint, if it is prima facie of the opinion that the whole or a part of cause
of action has arisen, it can certainly entertain the suit. There is no need to
ascertain whether the averments made in the plaint are true in fact. He
would further submit that, thus, for an enquiry under Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC, only the pleadings of the plaintiff can be looked into. Therefore, the
question of limitation, resjudicata and cause of action cannot be
determined at the stage of the rejection of the plaint and the same can only
be determined upon trial of the suit. In support of his contention he has
relied upon the following Judgments:
i) 2004(9) SCC 512 (Liverpool and London S.P &
Association) Ltd., Vs. M.V.Sea Success I and another
ii) 2009(13) SCC 241 (Rajiv Modi Vs. Sanjay Jain
and others)
iii) 2016(15) SCC 219 (Ajay Arjun Singh Vs. Sara
Dendu Divari and others)
iv) 2017(5) SCC 3456 (Kuldeep singh Pathania Vs.
Vikram Singh Jaryal)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
v) 2021(9) SCC 99 (Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs.
Hemand Vithal Kamat and others)
vi) 2024 (8) SCC 767 (State of West Bengal Vs.
Union of India)
12. Heard on both sides and perused the records.
13. In the present case, the revision petitioner prays for rejecting the
plaint on the following grounds:
1. Barred by limitation.
2. Absence of cause of action.
14. On the question of limitation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in the cases of i) Sham Lal alias Kuldip Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
reported in 2009 (2) SCC 454 ii) N.V. Srinivas Murthy and others Vs.
Mariyamma (dead) by proposed LRs and others reported in AIR 2005
SC 2197 as well as the case in Rama Prasath Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar
Gupta and others reported in 2007 (10) SCC 59 considering the
averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7
Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Therefore, to reject a plaint as barred by
limitation, it should be shown that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation
and it should so appear from the reading of the plaint. We shall examine
the case on hand in the light of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The plaint in the case on hand contains a specific averment that the
plaintiff came to know about the sale deed, dated 26.12.1981 only in July,
2019. Nowhere it is mentioned that through whom and how the plaintiff
was aware of the sale deed, dated 26.12.1981 registered in the name of the
first defendant's mother. Admittedly, the suit has been filed after lapse of
40 years from the date of registration of the sale deed. It is settled legal
position that, whenever a document is registered the date of registration
becomes the date of deemed knowledge. It is the specific case of the first
defendant that the maternal aunt of the plaintiff, viz., Radharukkumani
executed a registered sale deed in favour of the first defendant's mother
Rajammal and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Thereafter, in the family partition suit property was allotted to the first
defendant by virtue of a registered partition deed, dated 12.03.1986.
Even on bare looking on the averments in the plaint, there are only vague
averments with respect to the date of knowledge of the sale deed and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
suit has been filed after lapse of 40 years from the date of execution which
is a fit case to exercise the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Merely
by making some vague averments with respect to the execution of the sale
deed, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to bring the suit within the period
of limitation. There must be specific allegations and averments in the suit.
Though the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and
while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the
averments and allegations in the plaint are required to be considered, the
averments and allegations with respect to knowledge of the plaintiff is too
vague. Nothing has been mentioned about how the plaintiff had the
knowledge about the sale deed. The said statement made by the plaintiff
in the plaint is also not supported by any further averments. The plaintiff
cannot be permitted to bring the suit within the period of limitation by
clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation. At this stage, the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made Civil Appeal No.522 of
1979, dated 20.10.1994 in the case of Ramti Devi (smt) Vs. Union of
India is required to be referred to. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed and held as under:
6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (Madanuri Sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
Rama Chandra Murthy V. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174), this Court has
observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 178 -79, para 7);
“7. The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if
conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is
needless to observe that the power under Order VII Rule
11, CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The
relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the
application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and
meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly
vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue,
the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Since
the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the
threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be
strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a
whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or
whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that
the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The
averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the
defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the
defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations made
in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if
they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause
of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained
and the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised. If
clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of
action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus
litigation will end at the earlier stage.”
15. Therefore, when a suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot
be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as
to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
law of limitation. It is settled legal position that limitation creates a
substantial right in favour of succeeding party and against the defaulting
party, which cannot be taken away casually. The law of limitation is not
merely a matter of technicality, but, is a foundation of law. Hence, if the
facts and circumstances particularly of the plaint, on perusal, bring no
other conclusion but that of suit being barred by law of limitation, then,
the Court has no option but to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
CPC for being barred by law. The registration of the sale deed was on
26.12.1981. Therefore, the suit seeking for the relief of declaration to
declare the said sale deed as null and void ought to have been filed within
three years from the date of registration of the document. Therefore, the
present suit is barred by limitation.
16. On the point of cause of action, no doubt a reading of Order 7
Rule 11 will show that neither suppression of fact nor misrepresentation,
not even fraud, has been made a ground for rejection of the plaint. Even
the rule does not include abuse of process of Court as a ground for
rejection of plaint. Clauses (a) and (d), which deal with absence of
disclosure of cause of action and the suit appearing from the statement to
be barred by any law. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of of action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
for the suit or not, has got to be decided only based on the averments
made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint. The
cause of action alleged may not be true or may be a deliberate falsehood.
The Court dealing with a petition under Order VII Rule 11 cannot go in to
the question wether cause of action alleged in the plaint is true or false
and take a decision based on the defence plea taken by the defendant or
based on the documents produced by the defendant. On the other hand,
there may be cases in which the plea made in the plaint itself having the
effect of destruction of the plea regarding the cause of action and make
such plea regarding the cause of action illusory. Only in such cases, the
Court has to decide whether the cause of action alleged in the plaint is real
or that the plaint has been drafted in an intelligent manner to camouflage
an illusory cause of action as a real cause of action. A cause of action
alleged in the plaint being illusory different from the cause of action
alleged in the plaint being false. Only in the former case, the court can
reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of
action and not in the latter case.
17. Now, it has to be seen whether there is any cause of action to
file the suit. According to the revision petitioner / first defendant is alone
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Though the plaintiff
would contend that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property,
no document has been filed along with the plaint to establish his
possession and enjoyment in the suit property for claiming the relief of
permanent injunction. Though he would contend that the documents will
be produced at the time of trial at least when an application is filed to
reject the plaint, the plaintiff ought to have produced the documents to
establish his possession in the suit property. On the other hand, the first
defendant has produced all the revenue records to establish his possession
in the suit property. Moreover, the plaintiff contention is that he came to
know about the alleged sale deed in July, 2019. But, the suit was filed
only in the year, 2021. The reasons stated in the plaint cannot be accepted
which is not substantiated by any material. Hence, the allegation made in
the plaint that the defendants are attempting to dispossess the plaintiff
from the suit property found to be imaginary. The plaint has been drafted
in an intelligent manner to camouflage an illusory cause of action as a real
cause of action. By device of clever drafting of the plaint, the plaintiff is
attempting to file a fictitious suit on the basis of an illusory cause of
action and suit of the present nature is nothing but camouflage to get over
the bar of limitation, which is a time barred relief, as per Limitation Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
18. The suit, as such framed, is nothing but abuse of process of
Court and liable to be rejected. In result, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed setting aside the order, dated 06.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of
2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsiff,
Pattukkottai. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
29.01.2025
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
trp
Copy To:
The District Munsiff, Pattukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2242 of 2024
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
trp
Pre-Delivery Order made
in
C.R.P.(MD) No. 2242 of 2024 and
29.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
