Madras High Court
G.Pazhanivel vs / on 16 October, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
A.S.No.970 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
A.S.No.970 of 2025
& C.M.P.No.22842 of 2025
G.Pazhanivel,
S/o.Gothandapani Padayachi,
No.116, North Street,
Melmampattu Village,
Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District ... Appellant/Plaintiff
/versus/
S. Thilagavathy,
W/o.P.Sivakumar,
No.776, East Street,
Muthandikuppam Village,
Perperiyangkuppam Madura,
Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondent/Defendant
Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 C.P.C., pleased to set aside the
order dated 11.07.2025 made in unnumbered O.S (19R Nos.8886 of 2025 dated
20.06.2025 and 8973 Of 2025 dated 23.06.2025), on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Ravichander
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:58 pm )
A.S.No.970 of 2025
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein has filed a plaint before the Principal District
Judge, Cuddalore, with the following reliefs:
(i) Declaring plaintiff’s title to the suit property
and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant
and his men, agents and servants by a decree of
permanent injunction not to disturb plaintiff’s peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
(ii) Redeeming the mortgage deed, styled as
sale deed dated 15.03.2021 registered on the file of Sub-
Registrar, Kadampuliyur as document No:927/2021 in
book No:I
(iii) Directing the defendant to execute a sale
deed, re-conveying the suit property to plaintiff by a
decree of mandatory injunction.
(iv) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff
the cost of this suit and
(v) Granting all other just and necessary
reliefs.
2. The Learned Principal District Judge, on perusing the plaint, found
that the pleadings and the sale deed which the plaintiff wants to construe as a
mortgage deed has no trappings of mortgage or indication of intention to re-
sell.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:58 pm )
3. The plain reading of the sale deed is without any ambiguity. By
substituting different facts contrary to document by way of pleadings legally
impermissible. Hence, plaint was rejected by the Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore and ordering refund of the court fees in accordance with law.
4. This Court, on going through the pleadings and the documents
relied, find that the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deed
executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant are the two documents
relied as suit documents. These two documents does not whisper anything to
infer the sale deed in favour of the defendant to be read as mortgage deed or as
deed of conditional sale with right to reconvey. For lack of cause of action,
plaint rejected by the Court below.
5. This Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the trial
Court. Accordingly, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:58 pm )
6. In view of the fact that the suit was not numbered and the plaintiff
was permitted to get the refund of the court fees and the same concession shall
be extended to the appellant herein.
[Dr.G.J., J.] & [M.S.K., J.]
16.10.2025
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
bsm
Note: Registry is directed to refund the Court Fees as per law.
To,
1. The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:58 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR., J.
bsm
16.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:58 pm )
