Sajitha Banu vs M/S.Ameerunissa Begum Sahiba ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8019 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8019 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 October, 2025

Madras High Court

Sajitha Banu vs M/S.Ameerunissa Begum Sahiba ... on 25 October, 2025

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                              Order reserved on : 15.10.2025                   Order pronounced on : 25.10.2025
                                                                  CORAM
                                      THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

                                                         CRP.No.4233 of 2025

                     Sajitha Banu                                                             ... Petitioner
                                                                      Vs.

                     M/s.Ameerunissa Begum Sahiba Endowment,
                     Rep. by its President,
                     No.76, Pycrofts Road,
                     Bharathi Salai,
                     Chennai – 600 005.                                                       ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
                     India, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2025 in I.A.No.326
                     of 2019 in O.S.No.277 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Wakf Tribunal,
                     Chennai.

                                        For Petitioner         : Mr.R.Udayakumar

                                        For Respondent         : Mr.L.Gavaskar


                                                             ORDER

The plaintiff in O.S.No.277 of 2019 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal,

Chennai, is the revision petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )

2.The plaintiff's suit in O.S.No.277 of 2019 has been rejected on an

application filed by the respondent Endowment under Order VII Rule 11 of

CPC and aggrieved by the said order, rejecting the petitioner's plaint, the

present revision has been filed.

3.I have heard Mr.R.Udayakumar, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondent.

4.Mr.R.Udayakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would submit that there has been no landlord-tenant relationship at any

point of time and the respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.3840 of 2005

against one Mansoor Ali and had obtained an ex-parte decree on

13.11.2007. Though the said ex-parte decree was set aside, once again, the

suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 05.06.2009. He would further state that

large scale fraud has been played by the respondent and similarly placed

250 persons have been proceeded against in similar suits and ex-parte

decrees have been obtained by the respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further state

that the President of the Wakf has colluded with the respondent and thereby

the respondent is attempting to dispossess the petitioner. He would further

state that the advocate's clerk was examined in the witness box and none

related to the respondent Endowment were examined. He would therefore

state that substantial questions arise for consideration in the suit and when

the petitioner has specifically alleged fraud, the plaint could not have been

rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He would therefore state that the

revision may be allowed and the petitioner be given an opportunity to

contest the suit on merits.

6.Per contra, Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondent

would submit that even on 13.11.2007, a decree was passed against

Mansoor Ali, under whom the petitioner admittedly claims and inviting my

attention to the admission of the said Mansoor Ali that the land was owned

by the Endowment, he would submit that there is absolutely no triable issue

that arises for consideration in the suit and the EP itself has been filed even

in the year 2010 and the petitioner had successfully dragged the

proceedings. He would further state that the petitioner has already filed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm ) E.A.No.2943 of 2016, invoking Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and that being

the position, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the

present suit is clearly barred by Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and there is no

infirmity in the order of the trial Court allowing the application for rejection

of the plaint and thereby dismissing the suit itself.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsel on either side.

8.No doubt, the present suit has been filed by the revision petitioner

for the relief of declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3840 of

2005 dated 13.11.2007 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and

for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from executing the

decree in O.S.No.3840 of 2005.

9.Even though elaborate submissions were made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, alleging fraud committed by the respondent

Endowment, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has filed

E.A.No.2943 of 2016 under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and the same is still

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm ) pending enquiry, I do not see how the petitioner was entitled to file a fresh

suit in O.S.No.277 of 2019. In fact, the Wakf Tribunal has rightly noticed

that when delivery has been resisted in the execution proceedings, by

invoking Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, a separate suit by the successor-in-

interest, is clearly barred under Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC. I do not find

that the findings arrived at by the Wakf Tribunal are improper or perverse,

warranting interference in this revision.

10.However, at the same time, considering that the application under

Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC is pending enquiry and the petitioner also seeks

leave to bring to light additional relevant facts in the said application since

the plaint has been rejected and the only avenue to establish all contentions

of the petitioner is before the executing Court in the pending Order XXI

Rule 97 of CPC application, I am inclined to dispose of the revision in the

manner following:

(i) The order of the Wakf Tribunal dated 20.05.2025 in I.A.No.326 of

2019 is confirmed.

(ii) The petitioner is at liberty to raise additional grounds, by filing a

supplementary affidavit in E.A.No.2943 of 2016. Any such affidavit filed,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm ) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,

shall be received by the executing Court and shall form part and parcel of

the original application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC.

(iii) The executing Court shall give fair opportunity to the petitioner

as well as the respondents to put forth additional evidence, if any and

thereafter, the executing Court shall decide the Order XXI Rule 97

application on merits and in accordance with law.

(iv) The executing Court shall dispose of the Order XXI Rule 97 of

CPC application, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order.