The Madurai Bench allowed a civil revision petition directing the Subordinate Judge to admit a plaint in a money recovery suit without deleting defendants who were later transferees in a chain of property transfers.
Direct the Subordinate Judge to number the unnumbered OSSR.No.8696 of 2022 without insisting the petitioner delete defendants 2 to 4.
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.
CRP(MD)No.1618 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 20.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.1618 of 2022
S.Periyasamy ... Petitioner
Vs
1.V.Balakrishnan
2.B.Selvi
3.B.Sathya
4.P.Periyaswamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the civil revision petition and direct the Subordinate Judge, Karur to number the unnumbered OSSR.No.8696 of 2022 without insisting the petitioner / plaintiff to delete the defendants 2 to 4 in the plaint.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokul Raj
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed as
against the docket order dated 07.07.2022 in
OSSR.No.8696 of 2022 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur.
CRP(MD)No.1618 of 2022
2.The petitioner / plaintiff has filed the
above plaint in OSSR.No.8696 of 2022 for the relief of recovery of money and for declaring sale deed executed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents / defendants in favour of the 4th respondent / defendant will not bind on the petitioner / plaintiff and for permanent injunction as against the respondents to not to create any encumbrance over the suit property.
3.The case of the petitioner / plaintiff is that the 1st respondent / defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and had issued a promissory note on
09.09.2018 and subsequently he had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd and 3rd
respondents/ defendants of his entire property in their names on 13.11.2018. Though he has executed a promissory note on 09.09.2018, the subsequent document
has been made in order to avoid the payment pursuant to
the promissory note. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have
also executed a sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent / defendant on 21.03.2022. The plaint filed
by the petitioner was returned on 24.05.2022 that it is not maintainable as against defendants 3 and 4 without
any prayer for declaration with regard to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5
CRP(MD)No.1618 of 2022
settlement deed executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. The petitioner / plaintiff has re-presented the same by referring Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act. However it was again returned with a direction to the petitioner / plaintiff to file the suit restricting the prayer as against the 1st respondent alone and file a separate suit as against defendants 3 and 4.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner by referring Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act submits that the 1st respondent having executed promissory note dated 09.09.2018 has created sham and nominal document of settlement deed dated 13.11.2018 in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, they in turn have created further document in favour of 4th respondent. Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows:
“ 128. Universal donee.—Subject to the provisions of section 127, where a gift consists of the donor’s whole property, the donee is personally liable for all the debts due by 1[and liabilities of] the donor at the time of the gift to the extent of the property comprised therein.”
3/5
CRP(MD)No.1618 of 2022
5.Universal donee is a person who gets all the properties of immovable or movable of the donor in the gift where donor makes the gift as whole property without retaining anything for himself. The objection of Section 128 of Act is also to protect the interest of the donors.
6.In view of the above provision and the
guidelines issued by this Court in S.Parameswari Vs
Denis Lurdusamy reported in (2011) 5 CTC 742, the trial Court is directed to number the plaint and proceed in accordance with law.
7.In the result the civil revision petition is
allowed. No costs.
20.12.2022
Note: Registry shall return the original papers to the petitioner
DSK
To The Subordinate Judge, Karur.
CRP(MD)No.1618 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI,J.
dsk
CRP(MD)No.1618 of 2022
20.12.2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaint regarding recovery of money involving a chain of transfers should be maintained against all defendants without insisting on deletion of subsequent transferees.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Parameswari Vs Denis LurdusamyFollowed¶40
S.Parameswari Vs Denis Lurdusamy (2011) 5 CTC 742
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Periyasamy
V.Balakrishnan
B.Selvi
B.Sathya
P.Periyaswamy
B.Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
B.Pugalandhi
Parties & counsel
