Madras High Court
D. Kalaivani vs P.Suresh on 3 June, 2025
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
CRP No. 3197 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 02-04-2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
CRP No. 3197 of 2024
and
CMP No.17106 of 2024
1. D. Kalaivani
W/o. N.R.Dhandapani, Residing at No.70.
New No.24, Savarimuthu Street, Mannady,
Chennai-600 001
2. N R. Dhandapani
S/o. Raja Chettiar, Residing at No.70. New
No.24, Savarimuthu Street, Mannady,
Chennai-600 001
3. Yogeshwaran
S/o. N.R.Dhandapani, Residing at No.70.
New No.24, Savarimuthu Street, Mannady,
Chennai-600 001
Petitioner(s)
Vs
P.Suresh
S/o.Paramasivam, No.37/13, Pillaiyar Street,
North Mada Street, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 001
Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
CRP No. 3197 of 2024
strike of the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Tambaram.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.R.K. Bhavanantham
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Vijayan for Mr.K.Karthik
ORDER
The above civil revision petition has been filed to strike of the plaint in
O.S.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram.
2. For the ease of understanding, the parties are referred to in the same
ranking as before the trial Court.
3. Before proceeding to discuss the grounds, on which, the defendants 1 to 3
have invoked the superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to strike of the plaint, it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the
case, which reads as follows:
3.1 The suit in O.S.No.93 of 2020 is filed before the District Munsif Court,
Tambaram, for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
representatives from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. The suit schedule property comprises of three survey
numbers viz. S.No.125/1A measuring 1.28 acres, S.No.125/1C measuring 25 cents and
S.No.230/1B measuring 70 cents. All of these survey numbers have been described
within the specified boundaries in Patta No.320.
3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that these lands originally belonged to one
Sambandam Chettiar, who has sold the same to Meena wife of Paramasivam under the
registered sale deed dated 20.10.1975 vide Document No.3994/1975 on the file of the
Sub-Registrar Office, Tambaram. The said Meena, who is none other than the mother of
the plaintiff, had been in exclusive possession of the said property. On her demise
intestate on 07.12.1985, the plaintiff, as her sole legal heir, had inherited the property
and he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any
let or hindrance and he has also got the revenue records mutated in his favour in Patta
No.11941.
3.3 It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property is a vacant site and
in the month of September 2020, he has arranged to put up fence around the property, at
which point in time, the second defendant had trespassed and prevented the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
from putting up the fence. The defendants claim to be the relatives of Sambandam
Chettiar. Since the defendants had threatened to encroach into the suit property, the
plaintiff had come forward with the aforesaid suit.
3.4 The written statement was filed by the defendants inter alia denying the
sale in favour of the plaintiff's mother Meena. They contended that the said document
was a fabricated one. The certified copy of the sale deed, which has been filed in the
Court, simply uses the document number of another document with which the sale deed
is created. The sale deed is not signed by Sambandam Chettiar. It is the contention of
the defendants that Document No.3994/1975 does not pertain to the suit sale deed, but,
it is a mortgage deed, which has been executed by Dhanapal and Maniyammal, who are
third parties.
3.5 Further, the defendants would contend that Sambandam Chettiar and his
mother Paripooranamal had owned the suit property. Paripooranamal had purchased the
property under the registered sale deeds in the year 1922 and 1928 and she was carrying
on agricultural operations in the said lands using the services of coolies. On her death in
the year 1940, her sons Sambandam Chettiar and Murugesa Chettiar inherited the same.
Murugesa Chettiar had predeceased Sambandam Chettiar, issueless. Therefore, on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
death of Paripooranamal and Murugesa Chettiar, Sambandam Chettiar had become the
sole heir and owner of the property. He was in possession and enjoyment of the same
till his death on 11.08.1996. On his death, his two daughters viz. Koteeswari and
C.P.Kasturibai inherited the property. Koteeswari had a daughter, who is the first
defendant and C.P.Kasturi had a daughter and two sons Jayakumari, Krishnakumar and
Ramkumar. The kist was also being remitted in the name of Sambandam Chettiar till
Fasli year 1429.
3.6 On 18.11.2020, the defendants had tendered the kist for the land covered
under Patta No.320. However, the Village Administrative Officer, Perungalathur,
refused to receive the same stating that the ownership in the patta has changed, he was
however not forthcoming with the details. Therefore, the defendants browsed through
the official website, where, they came to know that the patta in respect of the lands had
been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants would submit that the
plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the patta and the legal heirs of Sambandam Chettiar
have not been informed or heard before the transfer of the patta in favour of the
plaintiff.
3.7 Further, the defendants would contend that the allegation that the plaintiff's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
mother Meena had exercised ownership over the suit property and had been in
possession of the same from the date of her purchase in the year 1975 is absolutely
false. The patta and all other revenue records in respect of the suit property stood in the
name of Sambandam Chettiar till 2018 and kist has been paid in his name till Fasli
1429.
3.8 The defendants would further contend that by an application dated
18.03.2018, the first defendant had sought to have the patta transferred in her name and
in the name of other legal representatives of Sambandam Chettiar through his
daughters. No action was taken on the said application. However, by an order dated
18.10.2020, the patta had been fraudulently transferred in the name of the plaintiff
without even issuing notice to the legal representatives of Sambandam Chettiar, in
whose name patta had stood till its mutation in the name of the plaintiff.
3.9 Further, the defendants would submit that the said Sambandam Chettiar
was cultivating the lands and thereafter, due to scarcity of water, cultivation could not
take place and the lands were lying fallow. On 30.01.2021, the first defendant had sunk
a bore well to the depth of 150 feet in S.No.230/1B and a shed for storage was also
erected on the suit property. However, on 02.02.2021, the plaintiff and his henchmen
had high handedly destroyed the said shed, but, had left the bore well intact. A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
complaint was lodged by the defendants on 03.02.2021 and the plaintiff was asked to
bring the original title deed. Once again, on 05.02.2021, the plaintiff and his men
trespassed into the property and objected the defendants from keeping sign board on the
property. While so, the second defendant was served with a notice in I.A.No.486 of
2020 in O.S.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, for the
reliefs claimed supra. The defendants had entered appearance in I.A.No.486 of 2020
and sought time for filing counter.
3.10 The first defendant's mother had earlier filed a suit for partition against her
sister in O.S.No.77 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. This case
was later transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and renumbered
as O.S.No.230 of 2002 and the same was dismissed for default, since the first
defendant's mother was unaware of the transfer of the case.
3.11 Since there was no progress on the complaint dated 22.02.2021 (online
complaint dated 23.02.2021) lodged by the first defendant, she had filed W.P.No.11751
of 2021. This writ petition was heard and an interim order was passed on 23.06.2021
with a direction issued to the authorities to compare the signatures in the sale deed
produced by the plaintiff. Since the patta had been transferred to the name of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
plaintiff without notice to the original owner viz. Sambandam Chettiar and his legal
representatives, the first defendant had filed W.P.No.10495 of 2021 for a mandamus to
cancel the patta issued in the name of the plaintiff and to restore the patta, which was
originally granted in the name of Sambandam Chettiar and also to take action against
the Village Administrative Officer, who has fabricated the revenue records. This writ
petition is still pending.
3.12 The defendants would further submit that the question of them trespassing
into the property does not arise, inasmuch as, they are the owners themselves and are in
possession of the property. Therefore, there was absolutely no necessity for the
defendants to trespass into their own property. They sought for the dismissal of the suit.
The written statement had been filed on 21.09.2021.
3.13 Thereafter, the defendants have come forward with the present civil
revision petition seeking to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020. The main ground,
on which, the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020 is sought to be struck of is that the sale deed
dated 20.10.1975, under which, the plaintiff claims title to the property, is a fabricated
and fraudulent document. The document number, which is displayed upon the certified
copy of the sale deed (certified copy of the copy sheet) does not relate to the suit sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
deed, but, refers to a totally unconnected document, which is a mortgage deed executed
by one Dhanapal in favour of Maniyammal in respect of some other property. The
revenue records have been mutated only on the basis of this fraudulent sale deed.
Therefore, the defendants seek to have the plaint rejected on the ground of fraud and
abuse of the process of the Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/petitioners
would further submit that till the year 2020 kist was being paid in the name of
Sambandam Chettiar, as the revenue records stood in the name of Sambandam Chettiar.
Despite the revenue records standing in the name of Sambandam Chettiar, the Village
Administrative Officer has colluded with the plaintiff to transfer patta, which stood in
the name of Sambandam Chettiar in Patta No.230, to the name of the plaintiff without
notice to the original pattadhar. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this
Court to the observations made in the order dated 28.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.11751
of 2021, wherein, the learned Judge has clearly observed that the document viz. the sale
deed dated 20.10.1975 appears to be a fabricated and forged sale deed. He would
further submit that despite the plaintiff claiming exclusive title to the property, he had
not made any attempt to seek declaration of his title to the same, particularly, when the
defendants were claiming title to the same. He would rely upon the judgment of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
Court in K.Kaleur Rahman & others Vs. P.Kannan & others 1 in support of his
argument, wherein, this Court had discussed the scope and ambit of a petition filed
under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, on the other hand, would
contend that the submission that this Court in the writ petition W.P.No.11751 of 2021
had declared the sale deed dated 20.10.1975 to be a fabricated and forged document is
false and therefore, he would contend that the suit cannot be rejected. He would rely
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Alka Gupta Vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta2
in this regard. He would further submit that the FIR stating that the sale deed in favour
of the plaintiff was null and void has not been registered. That apart, the order passed in
W.P.No.11751 of 2021 was taken up on challenge right up to the Supreme Court and
the Supreme Court by judgment dated 11.04.2022 in S.L.P.(Crl.).No.3301 of 2022
dismissed the same and had clearly observed that the investigation shall not be
influenced by the observations made in the order passed in W.P.No.11751 of 2021 and
would act independently of the same. He would further submit that the defendants
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of
India, particularly, when an alternative remedy is available in the form of Order 7 Rule
1 2019-3-L.W. 945
2 (2010) 10 SCC 141
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
11 of the CPC. He would seek to have the petition dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit in question for a bare injunction on
the basis that the property was purchased by his mother Meena from one Sambandam
Chettiar under the registered sale deed dated 20.10.1975 and the said sale deed has been
registered as Document No.3994/1975 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office,
Tambaram. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the demise of his mother, he had
inherited the property and had got the revenue records mutated in his name. In
paragraph no.7 of the plaint, while detailing the cause of action, he has clearly stated
that the cause of action for the suit arose on 20.10.1975 when the plaintiff's mother
purchased the property from Sambandam Chettiar.
8. The defendants had challenged the said document as a fabricated and
forged one. They would submit that upon enquiry and in response to RTI enquiry, it has
come to their knowledge that Document No.3994/1975 on the file of the Sub Registrar
Office, Tambaram, is a mortgage deed executed by Dhanapal in favour of Maniyammal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
in respect of some other property and not the suit property. In the writ proceedings in
W.P.No.11751 of 2021, the Sub Registrar, Tambaram, has made a statement, wherein, it
has been clearly stated that Document No.3994/1975 was a mortgage document
executed by one Dhanapal in favour of Maniyammal in respect of the property at
Vengambakkam Village. Further, the Sub Registrar, Tambaram, has clearly stated that
Document No.3994/1975 is not a sale deed executed by Sambandam Chettiar in favour
of Meena in respect of the suit property. The office index and thumb impression register
relating to this document number clearly shows that it is executed by Dhanapal in
favour of Maniyammal. The Sub Registrar, Tambaram, has enclosed the certified copy
of the mortgage deed, which is written in the vernacular (Tamil), whereas, the sale deed
projected by the plaintiff is in the English language. Therefore, the very basis, on which,
the suit has been filed viz. the sale in favour of the plaintiff's mother stands falsified and
the document produced clearly indicates that it is a fabricated document. The plaintiff,
who claims that his mother has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property
from the date of purchase in the year 1975 has not produced any document to show such
possession. On the contrary, the defendants have produced kist receipts and revenue
records to show that till the year 2019, the records stood in the name of Sambandam
Chettiar. That apart, by an application dated 18.03.2018, the first defendant had sought
to have the patta transferred in her name and in the name of other legal heirs of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
Sambandam Chettiar, for which, there was no response from the revenue authorities.
However, despite the fact that admittedly originally the patta stood in the name of
Sambandam Chettiar and an application for transferring the patta had been made on
16.03.2020, the revenue authorities have transferred the patta in favour of the plaintiff
on 18.10.2020 without notice to the original pattadhar Sambandam Chettiar or his legal
representatives. Further, the Sub Registrar, Tambaram, has addressed a letter to the
District Registrar (Administration), South Chennai, in which, he has stated as follows:
“,J bjhlh;ghf mYtyf bjhFjpapy;
Ma;t[r;bra;jjpy; nkw;fhZk; Mtz vz;/3994-1975 Mtz
efy; fhzg;bgwtpy;iy giHa Mtz efy; bjhFjpfs;
Nine star epWtdj;jhy; xsptUly; bra;ag;gl;L te;j
epiyapy; gpw bjhFjp mYtyf efy;fSld;
fye;jpUf;fyhk; vd;gjhy; njlg;gl;LtUfpwJ/ ,e;epiyapy;
rk;ke;jg;gl;l ml;ltiz II rpjykile;j epiyapy;
ml;ltiz I kw;Wk; ifnuif gjpntL bjhFjp
Ma;tpbra;jjpy; mlkhdk; Mtzj;jpw;Fhpa bt';fk;ghf;fk;
fpuhkk; Mtz brhj;J bjhlh;ghf tptu';fns
fhzg;gLfpd;wd/ fpiua Mtzj;jpw;Fhpa bgU';fsj;J}h;
fpuhk brhj;jJ tptu';fs; fhzg;gltpy;iy/ ”
9. This Court, while passing final orders in W.P.No.11751 of 2021, has also
referred to the aforesaid communication. The learned Judge had observed as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
“19. On perusal of the request of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram in
Na.Ka.No.393 of 2021, dated 09.07.2021, which was sent to the District
Registrar (Administration), South Chennai, Nandhanam, Chennai, it is
seen that the document No.3994 of 1975 is only a mortgage deed and
not a sale deed. The encumbrance certificate is not with proper details.
The Sub Registrar, Tambaram stated that the forged document No.3994
of 1975 was not available in the revenue records. When the old
documents were digitalized by Ninestar agency, the document No.3994
of 1975 seems to be mixed up with other documents. Since the schedule-
II records are damaged, the schedule-I records for maintaining the
finger print was verified and found that the document No.3994 of 1997
pertains to Vengambakkam Village and not Perungalathur Village. On
enquiry with the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram as well as Sub Registrar,
Padapai, it was found that a mistake was committed in registering the
document No.3994 of 1975 and in the encumbrance certificate of the
property of the petitioenr at Perungalathur village. Hence, the Sub
Registrar, Tambaram had written letter to the District Registrar
(Administration), South Chennai, Nandhanam, Chennai seeking order
to carry out correction and delete the mistake committed in the
encumbrance certificate. The Sub Registrar, Tambaram produced the
photocopy of the schedule-I register, wherein, it is seen that the
document No.3994 of 1975 pertains to a mortgage deed between
Maniyammal and Ramalinga Naicker. The schedule-I produced also
confirms the same. ”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
10. Therefore, it is clear that that certified copy of the sale deed, upon which,
the plaintiff claims title is not a sale deed as described by him and further, the parties to
that document are some third parties and does not relate to the plaintiff. In fact, the
learned Judge had observed that the certified copy, upon which, the plaintiff claims title
appears to be a forged document. Therefore, prima facie it is clear that the very basis,
upon which, the plaintiff has filed this suit is a false. The continuance of such a suit is a
waste of judicial time, since the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding is near
impossible. Further, the suit itself is based on a fraudulent document and this Court
cannot entertain such a claim. The conduct of the plaintiff also requires to be taken note
of. Despite the defendants coming forward with the categoric defence that the
document, under which, the plaintiff claims title is a fraudulent document and that the
property belongs to them exclusively and they are in possession of the same, the
plaintiff, who had filed the suit in the year 2020 had not deemed fit to amend the plaint
for the relief of declaration. That apart, the plaintiff has not come forward to produce
the original sale deed to prove that Document No.3994/1975 relates to the sale deed,
under which, his mother had purchased the property and not the mortgage deed, as
contended by the defendants and as confirmed by the Sub Registrar. Further, the suit
was allowed to be dismissed for default on 05.07.2022 and it is only a year later the
same has been set aside and the suit reopened. It is seen that despite the matter being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
posted for trial under the special list, the plaintiff has not evinced interest in proceeding
with the matter, all of which, would go to show that the defence raised is a valid
defence. Since the suit in question is filed on the ground of fraud and the same has been
substantially established by the defendants, the continuation of the suit is unnecessary.
The delay therefore in filing this revision cannot be held against the defendants.
11. In K.K.Modi vs. K.N.Modi3, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an
abuse of the process of Court especially where the proceedings are
absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such
proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the
Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of Courts'
discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and
this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a
jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised and exercised only in
special cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no
chance of the suit succeeding.”
Therefore, in light of the above findings and observations, this civil revision
petition stands allowed and the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Tambaram, is struck of. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
3 (1998) 3 SCC 573
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
030625
nsd
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
The District Munsif, Tambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
P.T.ASHA J.
nsd
03.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 04:21:11 pm )
