Dismissed

S.Sivakumar v. P.Visalakshi

Madras HC16 Aug 2021CRP/400/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside an order rejecting a plaint as barred by limitation. The court confirmed the order, directing the lower court to frame issues on limitation and decide the matter on merits within six months.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; the lower court is directed to frame issues on limitation and dispose of the suit on merits within six months.

S.Sivakumar Vs P.Visalakshi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P. (PD) No.400 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.2718 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.08.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

C.R.P. (PD) No.400 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.2718 of 2019
S.Sivakumar ... Petitioner /
3 rd defendant
versus
1.P.Visalakshi
2.M.Palanisamy ... Respondents /
Plaintiffs

¶7

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated 28.11.2018 made in I.A.No.55 of 2017 in O.S.No.856 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Saravana Sowmiyan For Respondents : Mr.Hari

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 28.11.2018 in I.A.No.55 of 2017 in O.S.No.856 of 2016 passed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

¶11

1/5

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶13

C.R.P. (PD) No.400 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.2718 of 2019

¶14

2. The respondents / plaintiffs filed O.S.No.856 of 2016

¶15

against the petitioner, who is the 3^rd defendant and other defendants, claiming the relief of declaration that the Sale Deed dated 25.04.2008 executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, is null and void, nonest and void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs and for other reliefs. The petitioners entered appearance and filed I.A.No.55 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11(a),(b) and (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint. Among other grounds, the main ground taken by the petitioners for filing this petition is that, the suit is barred by limitation and it is abuse of process of law.

¶16

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention

¶17

of this Court to the paragraph 7 of the plaint, wherein, it is alleged that the

¶18

Sale Deed was registered inspite of the objection dated 08.02.2008 given by the first plaintiff and then, it is said patta was illegally transferred to the

¶19

name of third defendant by the fifth defendant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents were aware of the execution of

¶20

the Sale Deed even in the year 2008. However, they have not chosen to file

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶23

C.R.P. (PD) No.400 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.2718 of 2019

¶24

the suit within the time for the aforesaid reliefs. It is palpably barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the respondents prays to dismiss the petition on the ground that the suit was filed in time and there is no reason for rejecting the plaint.

¶25

4. As said supra, the suit was filed for declaring the Sale Deed dated 25.04.2008 executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, is null and void, nonest and void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs. The main issue apparent from the averments made and counter averments made in I.A.No.55 of 2017 is that, whether this suit is barred by limitation and therefore, it has to be rejected. The question of limitation, is mixed question of fact and law. It requires the evidence, both oral and documentary, to finally conclude as to whether the claim is barred by limitation. The learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, has also considered this aspect and dismissed the petition. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned III Additional

¶26

Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

¶27

3/5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶29

C.R.P. (PD) No.400 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.2718 of 2019

¶30

5. In such view of the matter, this Court confirms the order

¶31

passed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.55 of 2017 in O.S.No.856 of 2016 dated 28.11.2018 and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, with the direction to the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, to frame the appropriate issues with regard to the issue raised that the suit is barred by limitation and dispose the matter, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possibly, preferably, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.

¶32

16.08.2021 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No sri

¶33

To The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

¶34

4/5

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶36

C.R.P. (PD) No.400 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.2718 of 2019

¶37

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶38

sri

¶39

C.R.P. (PD) No.400 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.2718 of 2019

¶40

16.08.2021

¶41

5/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.Sivakumar v. P.Visalakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivakumar v. P.Visalakshi

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

Perumal Vs Chinnasamy

J.Manikandan Vs M.Jayavel

Thai Sai Nalaviduthidharmasthabanam Vs Narayana Chettiyar

M.Ganesan Vs H.Syed Mohamed

P.Srinivasan Purushothaman Vs Chitra Karthik

P.Palanisammy Vs Chithambaram