Dismissed

S.Balasubramanian v. P.Annadurai

Madras HC19 Nov 2019CRP/3424/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition filed against the rejection of an application to strike off a plaint filed by a defendant. The High Court held that the trial court correctly refused to reject the plaint summarily because the plaintiff pleaded a 2010 sale deed, and issues of title and limitation required a full trial under Article 69 of the Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

S.Balasubramanian Vs P.Annadurai — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.3424 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.3424 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.22529 of 2019
S.Balasubramanaiam ... Petitioner
Vs.
P.Annadurai ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 07.08.2019 made in I.A.No.312 of 2018 in O.S.No.186 of 2017 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Erode.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondent : Mr.V.Ayyadurai, Senior Counsel For Mr.D.Gopal

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.312 of 2018 in O.S.No.186 of 2017 by the I Additional District Judge, Erode, by order dated 07.08.2019.

¶11

1/7

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

C.R.P.(PD).No.3424 of 2019

¶14

2.Heard Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶15

3.Before the trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of suit property, which he claimed to have purchased in the year 2010 for a valid sale consideration. In the said suit, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the present I.A.No.312 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code to strike off the plaint or reject the plaint. The said application, having been heard, was rejected by the trial Court through the impugned order, as against which, the defendant has filed the present revision.

¶16

4.It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff before the Court below

¶17

that, he laid a suit for declaration and injunction, based on the title he traced from the sale deed made in the year 2010 i.e., on 23.09.2010. Prior to that, it seems that, the revision petitioner had been enjoying the property and he traced the title stating that, patta has been given in his favour and in this regard, matter has gone to the Revenue Authorities and on 14.03.2003 itself, the DRO concerned has passed

¶18

2/7

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

C.R.P.(PD).No.3424 of 2019

¶21

an order in favour of the revision petitioner and patta has been given in his name.

¶22

5.However, the plaintiff's case is that, as against the order passed by the DRO dated 14.03.2003, an appeal or revision has been filed by the plaintiff before the DRO which was disposed of on 07.08.2017, where it has been stated as follows:

¶23

",e;neh;tpy;. mg;nghija kDjhuh; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;F nghjpa tha;g;gspj;J <nuhL khtl;l tUtha; mYtyhpd; bray;Kiwfs; t/g/10/ 1999/C3. ehs;:14/03/2003 d; go cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhYk;. nkw;go uP/r/ 618-y; g[/bcw/1/30/00 tp!;jPuzk; cs;s g{kp gl;lh vz; 1954 d; go jpU/ghyRg;gpukzpad; vd;gthpd; bgahpy; jhf;fyhfp mtuJ mDgtj;jpy; ,Ue;J tUtjhf fpuhk eph;thf mYtyhpd; mwpf;ifapy; bjhpa tUtjhYk;. jw;nghJ nkw;go g[yj;jpw;F fpua Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; kDjhuh; jpU/mz;zhJiu vd;gth; chpik ghj;jpak; nfhUtjhYk;. jFe;j chpikapay; ePjpkd;wk; K:yk; jdJ chpikia epiyehl;of; bfhs;s ,jd;K:yk; kDjhuUf;F cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/"

¶24

6.Since the Revenue Authority has directed the plaintiff to

¶25

approach the Civil Court to establish the right and title over the

¶26

property, the plaintiff rightly approached the Court below by filing the present suit.

¶27

3/7

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

C.R.P.(PD).No.3424 of 2019

¶30

7.When that being the position, whether the suit can be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) was under the consideration before the trial Court, who after having heard both, has rejected the said application filed by the revision petitioner/ defendant, of course rightly.

¶31

8.I have gone through the impugned order where the learned Judge has stated that, since the property claimed to have been purchased for a valid sale consideration in the year 2010 and thereafter, he approached the Revenue Authorities who passed the order on 07.08.2017 driving the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court, he has rightly approached the Civil Court, therefore, the issue as to whether he is entitled for such a declaratory relief and possession of the suit property can be gone into only on the trial.

¶32

9.The said reason given by the learned Judge in the judgment impugned is fully justifiable.

¶33

10.Even in respect of the point raised by the revision petitioner/ defendant before the Court below that, the suit is barred by limitation

¶34

4/7

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

C.R.P.(PD).No.3424 of 2019

¶37

also has been considered and it has been gone into by the trial Court and has given its reasons that, under Article 69 of the Limitation Act, within 12 years from the date of the order, such suit can be laid and based on these prima facie facts, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that, at this juncture, the defendant cannot invoke Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint, accordingly, the trial Court has dismissed the said application.

¶38

11.The reasoning given by the trial Court as well as the facts

¶39

and circumstances of the case, makes it clear that, the issues raised in the suit can be gone into by the trial Court only through a full fledged trial, under which, both parties can establish their right over the property, as it is a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property.

¶40

12.Without having gone into the veracity of the claim by both parties through a trial, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold, for which, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no plausible or acceptable reason is available.

¶41

5/7

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

C.R.P.(PD).No.3424 of 2019

¶44

13.In that view of the matter, this Court feels that, the impugned order does not require any interference from this Court and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶45

19.11.2019
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Sgl
To
The I Additional District Judge,
Erode.

¶46

6/7

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶48

C.R.P.(PD).No.3424 of 2019

¶49

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶50

Sgl

¶51

C.R.P.(PD).No.3424 of 2019
19.11.2019

¶52

7/7

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.Balasubramanian v. P.Annadurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Balasubramanian v. P.Annadurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivaraman Vs Gilles Mariadossou

G.Udayakumar Vs Margadarsi Chits Private Ltd.

S.Afroze Banu Vs H.Syed Yahya

Chinna Akkamma Vs Nagamma

Satya Sundar Sethy Vs Deepika Sethy

R.Nithiyanantham Vs the Director General