Allowed

S.Karthikeyan v. Sivasubramanian

Madras HC20 Dec 2022CRP/900/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.Karthikeyan filed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting his plaint for lack of locus standi and limitation. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the trial court to number the suit, frame issues on locus standi and limitation, and proceed to decide the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed; the impugned order was set aside; the trial court directed to number the suit, frame issues on limitation and locus standi, and decide the suit on merits.

S.Karthikeyan Vs Sivasubramanian — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P.No.900 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.900 of 2019

¶7

S.Karthikeyan .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Sivasubramanian 2. Maragatham 3. S.Rajalakshmi

¶10

S.Rekha

¶11

Jayabalan

¶12

Sangeetha .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.01.2019 by I Assistant Judge City Civil Court at Chennai by rejecting the plaint O.S.S.R.No.73495 of 2018.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.L.J.Krishnamurthy For Respondents R1 to R4 : No appearance Notice served R5 and R6 : Mr.V.Purushothaman for Mrs.E.Angayarkanni

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.No.900 of 2019

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.01.2019, passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby rejecting the plaint for the reason that the petitioner has no locus standi to file a suit and the suit is barred by limitation.

¶20

The petitioner is the Plaintiff in the suit. He had filed a suit as against the respondents for declaration declaring that the sale deed executed by the first and second defendants in favour of the fifth defendant, dated 05.11.1999 as null and void and also prayed for declaration declaring that the settlement deed executed by the fifth respondent in favour of the sixth respondent dated 03.06.2004 registered vide Document No.1646 of 2004 as null and void.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he is the only son born to the first defendant. The second defendant is the mother and the defendants 3 and 4 are his sisters. The suit property bearing Door No.22/43, Apparsamy Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, was originally purchased by one Natesa Gramani, who is none other than the grand father of the plaintiff,

¶22

Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.R.P.No.900 of 2019

¶24

who had settled the property by way of a registered settlement deed dated 21.09.1953 in favour of his legal heirs, in respect of various properties. One among the properties is the suit property which was settled in favour of the first defendant. As per the settlement deed, the first defendant was given only life time interest over the suit property and the absolute right was given to the male child born to the settlee i.e, the petitioner herein. Therefore, the first defendant has no right to sell the property or settle the property in any one's favour. The petitioner was arrested in a criminal case and subsequently released on bail. Only thereafter, he had knowledge about the sale deed and the settlement deed in respect of the suit properties. Therefore, he had filed a suit.

¶25

A perusal of the impugned order revealed that the Trial Court had rejected the plaint for the reason that the suit itself is barred by limitation and the petitioner has no locus standi. The Trial Court ought to have numbered the suit first, if it is in order and the Trial Court can very well frame the preliminary issues in respect of the limitation and locus standi, since admittedly the petitioner was born to the first defendant and

¶26

Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

C.R.P.No.900 of 2019

¶28

therefore, he has challenged the settlement deed and sale deed executed by the defendants.

¶29

Hence, the order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.01.2019 in O.S.S.R.No.73495 of 2018, passed by the learned I Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai, is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to number the suit, if it is otherwise in order and frame the issues with regard to limitation and locus standi and proceed with the suit and decide the same, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶30

In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No

¶31

costs.

¶32

20.12.2022

¶33

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mn

¶34

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶35

Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.900 of 2019

The I Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶40

C.R.P.No.900 of 2019

¶41

20.12.2022

¶42

Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Karthikeyan v. Sivasubramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Karthikeyan v. Sivasubramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvathi Vs Boliappan

K. Gopalakrishnan Vs Reynold Vasanthakumar

M.Showkath Ali Vs Kuppusamy

K.S.Mohammed Saleem (Died) Vs K.S.Mohammed Zackriah

D.Perumal Vs Salem District Central

Puratchimani Vs Fathima Beevi