The single-judge bench dismissed an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject a property suit. The court held that discrepancies in property schedules across multiple registered documents cannot be resolved without witness examination and thus are insufficient grounds to reject the plaint at the threshold stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
A. N o . 39 6 6 of 20 1 3
IN
C. S . N o . 10 1 8 of 20 1 0
C. V . K A R T H I K E Y A N , J.
This application has been filed by the fifth defendant in the suit under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC read with Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules, to reject the plaint in C.S.No. 1018 of 2010 against the fifth defendant.
2. C.S.No. 1018 of 2010 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
(a) Declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule
mentioned property hereunder by virtue of sale deed dated 29.7.64 purchased by
their father M.V.Radhakrishna Naidu under Document No. 2844 of 1964
registered in the Office of Sembium, from V.Jagannatha Mudaliar;
the rear portion of the suit schedule mentioned property hereunder and directing
the defendants to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule mentioned
property hereunder to the plaintiffs;
2
(c) for declaring that the alleged sale deeds dated 17.07.2006 registered in
Office of Sembium, thereof under document No. 3513, sale deed dated 6.1.2010 under document 69 of 2010 registered in the Sub Registrar Office Konnur, Chennai and settlement deed dated 24.8.2006 under document No. 4101 of 2006 registered in the Sub Registrar Office Sembium, Chennai is illegal, invalid and not est in the eye of law and directing the defendants to cancel the above said documents in the respective Sub Registrar Office;
(d) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute a deed of
cancellation of sale deeds, settlement deeds in the office of the Sub Registrar
Konnur on a day to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and deliver the same to the plaintiff;
(e) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, their
agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them or Authorised by them from interfering with the schedule mentioned property; and
servants or any person or persons claiming through them or authorised by the
from any manner alienating or encumbering or dealing with the suit schedule
property either by way of sale, mortgage, lien, lease or joint development or
3
otherwise.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the above application, the power of
attorney of the fifth defendant had stated that the respondents/plaintiffs had claimed that one V.Jaganathan Mudaliar had purchased the eastern portion of Plot No. 10 measuring north to south 80 feet and East to West 13 feet on the southern side and 8 feet on the northern side by a deed of sale dated 24.2.64 registered as Document No. 590/64. Further, by a rectification deed dated 16.7.64 the vendors had corrected the measurement of the said eastern portion of Plot No. 10 sold to the said V.Jaganathan Mudaliar ie., North to South 80 feet on both sides and East to West on the southern side 13 feet and on the northern side 20 feet. They further claimed that the said V.Jaganathan Mudaliar also purchased the western portion of Plot No. 10 from one Kanniappa Pillai measuring North to South 80 feet on both sides and East to West on the northern side 24 feet and on
th southern side 31 feet by sale deed No. 1572/1964 dated 29.04.1964. It had been further stated that the said V.Jaganathan Mudaliar had consequently purchased the entire vacant Plot No. 10 comprised in S.No. 264 and 265/5 measuring North to South 80 feet on both sides and East to West measuring 44
feet by both the sides, in all measuring 3520 sq.ft., which is the suit property. Thereafter the said V.Jaganathan Mudaliar had sold the entire vacant Plot No. 10, comprised in S.No. 264 and 265/5 to V.Radhakrishna Naidu by deed of sale No.
4
2844/64 dated 29.07.1964.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it had been further
stated that in the above sale deed No. 2844/64 dated 29.07.64 a mere reading of the schedule of property reveals that the actual extent of vacant land conveyed to
V.Radhakrishna Naidu was only 1320 sq.ft., conveyed as per rectification deed
dated 16.07.1964 and not 3520 sq.ft., as mentioned in the plaint. It had been
further stated that the entire document is ambiguous and the sale deed No. 2844/64 is invalid. It had been further stated that it does not convey a clear right in favour of the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of V.Radhakrishna Naidu.
5. It had been further stated that the encumbrance certificate filed by
the plaintiffs for the period 01.01.1963 to 13.09.2010 does not reflect the rectification deed No. 2638/64 dated 16.07.1964. It had been stated that since there is non disclosure of cause of action for the entire suit schedule property, the plaint is liable to be rejected as against the fifth defendant.
6. In response to this contention, the learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs after again re-iterating the averments in the plaint pointed out the schedule given in the various documents. The learned counsel stated that
the schedule in the sale deed filed as Document No. 5 dated 17.07.2006 by the
first and second defendants in favour of the third defendant in Document No. 3513
/06, is given as follows:-
5
brhj;J tptuk;
tlbrd;id gjpt khtl;lk;. bfhd;D}h; cggjpt[ khtl;lk;. bfhd;D}h;
fpuhkk;. tlf;F b$fe;ehjd; efh;. o//o/gp/mg;U:t;L ny mt[l;. rh;nt vz;/260 to 265. Block No.:46, T.S.No.23, tlf;F b$fe;ehj efh;. 1=tJ bjU. tpy;ypthf;fk;.
brd;id = 49. thh;L vz;/63. kz;lyk; = 4. kid vz;/10A-f;F tp!;jPuzk; 3.360
rJu mo gug;gst[s;s tPLfl;lf;Toa fhypkidf;F ehd;F gf;f vy;iyfs;/
tlf;F = tPL
bjw;F = tlf;F b$fe;ehj efh; Kjy; bkapd; nuhL
fpHf;F = tPL T.S.No.24/1 Part
nkw;F = fhyp kid. T.S.No.20
,jd; kj;jpapy;
tlf;F = 42 mo
bjw;F = 42 mo
fpHf;F = 80 mo
nkw;F = 80 mo
Mf bkhj;jk; 3.360 rJu mo tp!;jPuzKs;s tPLfl;lf;Toa mg;U:t;L
fhyp kid ,f;fpuagj;jpuj;jpw;F cl;gl;l 1tJ mapl;l brhj;jhFk;/
brhj;J tptuk;
tlbrd;id gjpt[ khtl;lk;. bfhd;D}hh; cl;gjpt[ khtl;lk;. bfhd;D}hh;
6
fpuhkk;. tlf;F b$fe;ehjd; efh;. o/o/gp/ mg;U:t;L ny mt[l;. rh;nt vz;/261
to 265. Block No.46, T.S.No.20, tlf;F b$fe;ehj efh; 1=tJ bjU.
tpy;ypthf;fk;. brd;id = 49. thh;L vz;/63. kz;lyk;=4. Kid vz;/12A=f;F
tp!;jPuzk; 3760 rJu mo gug;gst[s;s tPLfl;lf;Toa fhypkidf;F ehd;F gf;f vy;iyfs;/
tlf;F = tPL
bjw;F = bkapd; nuhL
fpHf;F = fhyp kid T.S.No.23
nkw;F = n$hjpfh tifawh tPL T.S.No.13
,jd; kj;jpapy;
tlf;F = 47 mo
bjw;F = 47 mo
fpHf;F = 80 mo
nkw;F = 80 mo
Mf bkhj;jk; 3760 rJu mo tp!;jPuzKs;s tPLfl;lf;Toa mg;U:t;L
fhyp kida[k;. ,f;fpuagj;jpuj;jpw;F cl;gl;lJ/
nkw;go brhj;jpd; jw;fhy khh;f;bfl; kjpg;g[ U:/8.08.400/-.
7. Subsequently, in the settlement deed dated 24.08.2006 by the third
defendant to the fourth defendant in Document No. 4101/2006, the schedule is
given as follows:-
7
S C H E D U L E O F P R O P E R T Y – I
NORTH BY : North Jaganathan Nagar 1st Main Road SOUTH BY : T.S.No. 59 Part, Belongs to Mr.V.Ramamoorthy EAST BY : House WEST BY : House and T.S.No. 59 Part
measuring
North 1351 feet, South 135 feet, East 40 feet, West 80 feet
Totaling in all together 6000 sq.ft., (irregular in shape) of approved vacant
housing land situated within the Sub- Registration District of Konnur and Registration District of North Chennai.
All that piece and parcel of vacant land bearing Plot No. 10A, 12A North
Jegannatha Nagar 1st Main Road, in the approved Lay out known as North Jegannatha Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 comprised in S.No. 265 and part T.S.No. 20 and T.S.No. 23, Block No. 31 of Konnur Village, Perambur,
8
Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District measuring an extent of 7120 sq.ft., and
bounded on the
NORTH BY : House SOUTH BY : North Jaganathan Nagar 1st Main Road EAST BY : House, T.S.No. 24/1 Part WEST BY : House belongs to Jothilingam T.S.No. 13
Measuring
North 89 feet, South 89 feet, East 80 feet, West 80 feet
Admeasuring 7120 sq.ft., of approved vacant housing land situated within
the Sub Registration District of Konnur and Registration District of North Chennai.
8. On the basis of the said settlement deed, the fourth defendant had mortgaged the property by deposit of title deeds and after the said mortgage had
been cleared, the third defendant had cancelled the settlement deed on 17.12.2009 by cancellation deed in Document No. 5378/2009 and the third defendant had again settled the property in favour of the fourth defendant by document dated 18.12.2009 and registered as Document No. 5385/2009. In this,
the schedule had been given as follows:-
9
All that piece and parcel of vacant land bearing Plot No. 23B, 24B, 24V,
North Jegannatha Nagar 1st Main Road, in the approved Lay out known as North Jegannatha Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 comprised in S.No. 256/2 Part, T.S.No. 59 Part, Block No. 31 of Konnur Village, Perambur, Purasawalkam
Taluk, Chennai District measuring an extent of 8100 sq.ft., and bounded on the
NORTH BY : North Jaganathan Nagar 1st Main Road SOUTH BY : T.S.No. 59 Part, belongs to Mr.V.Ramamoorthy EAST BY : House WEST BY : House and T.S.No. 59 Part
Measuring
North 135 feet, South 135 feet, East 40 feet, West 80 feet
Totaling in all together 8100 sq.ft., (irregular in shape) of approved vacant
Housing land situated within the Sub Registration District of Konnur and
10
Registration District of North Chennai.
All that piece and parcel of vacant land bearing Plot No. 10, North Jegannatha Nagar 1st Main Road, in the D.T.P. approved Lay out No. 94/63 known as North Jegannatha Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 comprised in
S.No. 264 Part, Block No. 46, T.S.No. 23 of Konnur Village, Perambur,
Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District measuring an extent of 3360 sq.ft., and
bounded on the
NORTH BY : Plot No.2, T.S.No. 22 SOUTH BY : North Jaganathan Nagar 1st Main Road EAST BY : House T.S.No. 24 Part, Plot No.9 WEST BY : Plot No.11, T.S.No.20
Measuring
North 42 feet, South 42 feet, East 80 feet, West 80 feet
11
Totaling in all together 3360 sq.ft., of approved vacant Housing land
situated within the Sub Registration District of Konnur and Registration District of
North Chennai.
All that piece and parcel of vacant land bearing Plot No. 11, North Jegannatha Nagar 1st Main Road, in the D.T.P. approved Lay out No. 94/63 known as North Jegannatha Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 comprised in S.No. 265/5A Part, Block No. 46, T.S.No. 20 of Konnur Village, Perambur, Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District measuring an extent of 3760 sq.ft., and
bounded on the
NORTH BY : Plot No.1, T.S.No. 19 and 21 SOUTH BY : North Jaganathan Nagar 1st Main Road EAST BY : House T.S.No. 23 Part, Plot No.10 WEST BY : Plot No.13, T.S.No.12
12
Measuring
North 47 feet, South 47 feet, East 80 feet, West 80 feet
Totaling in all together 3760 sq.ft., of approved vacant Housing land
situated within the Sub Registration District of Konnur and Registration District of North Chennai.
9. The learned counsel pointing out the same stated that cleverly there
has been an alteration in the schedule. The measurements also differed. The
plot numbers also differed. There has been difference in the plot numbers giving them as 10A, 12A and finally again as 10. The survey number also differed.
10. It is seen from the records that the boundaries, measurement, survey numbers, areas and DTP totally differed in each document. Finally, the fifth defendant had purchased by sale deed dated 6.1.2010 registered as Document No. 69/2010 and the schedule in the said document had been given as
follows:-
S C H E D U L E O F P R O P E R T Y
All that piece and parcel of vacant land bearing Plot No. 10, North
13
Jegannatha Nagar 1st Main Road, in the D.T.P. approved Lay out No. 94/63 known as North Jegannatha Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 comprised in
Block No. 46, T.S.No. 23, Survey No. 264 Part of Konnur Village, Perambur,
Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District measuring an extent of 3360 sq.ft., and
bounded on the
NORTH BY : Plot No.2, T.S.No. 22 SOUTH BY : North Jaganathan Nagar 1st Main Road EAST BY : Plot No.9, T.S.No. 24 Part WEST BY : Plot No.11, T.S.No.20
Measuring
| East to West on the Northern Side | : | 42 feet |
|---|---|---|
| East to West on the Southern Side | : | 42 feet |
| North to South on the Easter Side | : | 80 feet |
| North to South on the Western Side | : | 80 feet |
in all admeasuring 3360 sq.ft. The said property is a vacant land and lies within
the limits of Chennai Corporation.
11. It is seen from the above that there are a mixed question of facts
14
involved. Documents have been registered successively by party after party and
the document cannot be taken their face value. They have to be proved in accordance with law. The genunity has to be spoken to by the witnesses. The
witnesses have to be subjected to cross examination. Consequently, I hold that
the plaint cannot be rejected on the grounds stated and this Application is
therefore dismissed.
24.11.2016
Vsg
15
C. V . K A R T H I K E Y A N , J.
vsg
Pre-delivery Judgment in
A. N o . 39 6 6 of 20 1 3
IN C. S . N o . 10 1 8 of 20 1 0
24. 1 1 . 2 0 1 6 htt p ://w w w . j u d i s . n i c . i n
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint should be rejected simpliciter on the grounds of discrepancy in property schedules and lack of cause of action disclosure.
Whether the court can reject the plaint at the admission stage based on mere appearance of ambiguity in registered sale deeds without cross-examination.
Whether successive registered documents differing in measurements and boundaries are conclusive on their face for rejection of plaint.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Fifth Defendant
Plaintiffs
C. V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
