G.Sampath Vs K.Neelagandan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

G.Sampath Vs K.Neelagandan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Setting aside of the order dated 23.01.2023 in I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.7669 of 2019 on the file of XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai (thereby upholding the defendants' application to strike off/reject the plaint); consequentially, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.No.4938 of 2023) is closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.7669 of 2019 ought to be struck off/rejected as an abuse of the process of the Court involving fraud and suppression of material facts, notwithstanding the trial court's dismissal of I.A.No.5 of 2020 on the ground that the res judicata question could be decided only after trial. +1 more

Court's answer

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed: the order dated 23.01.2023 in I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.7669 of 2019 (XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai) dismissing the strike-off application is set aside, so that the defendants' application to reject the plaint stands granted; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed; no costs.

Ratio / Principle

The decree for specific performance obtained by the plaintiff in O.S.No.2582 of 2013 is not binding on defendants 1 and 2.

Key takeaways

By virtue of the decree in O.S.No.5413 of 1989, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was executed by a person who had no right, title or interest to the property.ratio¶68
The instant suit has to be rejected on the grounds of abuse of process of the Court, suppression of material facts, and want of locus on the plaintiff's part.ratio¶69
A plaintiff who has no right to the property cannot be permitted to maintain the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Ms. Justice P.T. Asha), 07.04.2025 — Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023 with C.M.P.No.4938 of 2023: ALLOWED. Defendants 1 and 2 (G. Sampath and Geetha Rani) challenged the dismissal by the XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai (order dated 23.01.2023 in I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.7669 of 2019) of their application to strike off the plaint in the plaintiff K. Neelagandan's suit for permanent injunction over 100 sq.ft. in T.S.No.94/1, Jamin Mambalam Village, Saidapet. The plaintiff's title derived from an agreement of sale by Padmavathy founded on a settlement deed dated 23.01.2004 executed by his father after the latter had suffered, and failed to reverse on appeal, the 19.09.1996 decree in O.S.No.5413 of 1989 (confirmed in A.S.No.18 of 1997; the plaintiff-side appeal A.S.No.34 of 1998 dismissed) declaring the defendants' family's rights over the adjoining 'B' schedule property; Padmavathy's own suit O.S.No.7896 of 2006 had been dismissed as res judicata-barred, her settlement deed having been found unenforceable and void. Holding the ex parte specific performance decree in O.S.No.2582 of 2013 not binding on defendants 1 and 2, and deeming the suit an abuse of process vitiated by suppression of material facts and want of locus, the Court set aside the dismissal order, permitting rejection of the plaint; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated :07.04.2025

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

Civil Revision Petition No.625 of 2023

and

C.M.P.No.4938 of 2023

1.G.Sampath S/o Gnanaprakasam

2.Geetha Rani W/o Sampath

Both are residing at No.103, Sadyappan Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

.....Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2/ Petitioners

/versus/

1.K.Neelagandan, S/o T.M.Kalyanasundaram, No.105, Sadayappan Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

..1^st Respondent/Plaintiff/Respondents

2.S.Vignesh S/o Sampath, No.103, Sadyappan Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

1/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

3.The Tahsildar, Mambalam Taluk, Chennai District, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078. .. 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents/ Defendants 3 and 4/Respondents

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside in the fair and decretal order dated 23.01.2023 in I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.7669 of 2019 on the file of XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioners :Mr.R.Subramanian

For Respondents :Mr.D.Gobal, Government Advocate for R3 R1 and R2 served-no appearance ------ ORDER

Challenging the dismissal of their application to strike off the plaint

filed in I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.7669 of 2019 on the file of the XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants 1 and 2, who are the petitioners, have filed the present petition before this Court.

The brief facts, which are necessary for disposing of this Civil

Revision Petition, are set out herein below:-

2/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

The first respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.7669 of 2019 seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents and persons, from in any manner trespassing, entering, causing damages by putting up any construction including compound wall, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property.

The plaintiff's case revolves around the following facts for ease of

understanding:-

The parties are referred to in the same ranking as in the above suit. The plaintiff would contend that the property comprised in T.S.No.94/1, measuring to an extent of 100 sq.ft., of land at Jamin Mambalam Village, Saidapet, which is the suit property, was a part of a larger extent of land. This larger extent of land was owned by one R.Padmavathi, who had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff. Despite paying the entire sale consideration, however, she failed to execute the sale deed in

3/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023 favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.2582 of 2013 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking specific performance of the contract. The said suit was decreed on 08.01.2014 and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff became the owner of the property.

He would further contend that the defendants 1 to 3 were living adjacent to the suit property and that, their property was comprised in T.S.No.92/1, however, the plaintiff's property is in S.No.94/1. He would contend that the defendants 1 to 3 are attempting to trespass into the suit property, which is a vacant land, where a small thatched shed is available. The plaintiff intended to put a compound wall around the property and with this intent, on 03.10.2019, when the plaintiff had purchased the material to construct a compound wall, the defendants 1 to 3 started to put up a compound wall and attempted to encroach into the plaintiff's property. This was stopped by the plaintiff with great effort. The plaintiff would submit that taking advantage of his absence, the defendants 1 to 3 were constantly

4/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

attempting to trespass into the property by putting up a compound wall annexing a portion of the plaintiff's property.

The plaintiff, meanwhile, came to learn that pursuant to the judgment and decree in A.S.No.42 of 1984 passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, S.No.92 has been subdivided as S.Nos.92/1 and 92/2. However, the 1^st defendant suppressing the above judgment and decree in A.S.No.42 of 1984 has been threatening the plaintiff as under S.No.92 has not been subdivided and the defendants 1 to 3 were attempting to trespass into the property. Since the threat was continuing from the defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question.

The defendants 1 and 2, immediately, on getting the notice in the above suit, had taken out an application to reject the pleadings in I.A.No.5 of 2020. They sought to have the plaint rejected on the ground that the present suit is nothing, but an abuse of process of the Court, an act of fraud

5/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

and an attempt to snatch an order from the Court, by suppressing the true facts. They contended that defendants 1 and 2 along with their mother, Tmt.Pattammal, elder sister Sarala and elder brother Asokan had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.5413 of 1989 on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against T.M.Kalyana Sundaram, who is none other than the father of the plaintiff. This suit was filed for a declaration that the “B” schedule property measuring to an extent of 6.1 feet x 18.9 feet, exclusively belongs to them and that, the father of the plaintiff T.M.Kalyana Sundaram, was to be injuncted from interfering with the suit property and the said suit was decreed on 19.09.1996 whereby the rights of the defendants 1 and 2 and others over the 'B' schedule property were declared and an injunction was granted. They would further submit that suppressing the same, Padmavathy, the daughter of T.M.Kalyana Sundaram, and the sister of the plaintiff, had filed a suit in O.S.No.7896 of 2006 before the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking permanent injunction restraining the first defendant's elder sister Sarala, elder brother Ashokan and the first defendant from trespassing, entering, disturbing the

6/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

possession in respect of the suit schedule property in T.S.No.94/1, measuring to an extent of 609 sq.ft., at Door No.76, Old Mambalam Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. This suit came to be dismissed, in the light of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.5413 of 1989 and A.S.No.18 of 1997 stating that the suit was barred by principles of res judicata. In the aforesaid suit i.e. O.S.No.7896 of 2006, Padmavathy had filed the settlement deed dated 23.01.2004 and the same was marked as Ex.A4. The learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, while dismissing O.S.No.7896 of 2006 had held that a perusal of Ex.B3 would clearly show that T.M.Kalyana Sundaram, had no title to the eastern half of the suit property covered by Ex.A4. The Court also observed that the settlement deed dated 23.01.2004 was unenforceable and void. The defendants 1 and 2, therefore contended that Padmavathy, who had no title to the property, had no right to execute the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and, consequently, that the decree for specific performance obtained by the plaintiff in O.S.No.2582 of 2013 was fraudulent one. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.7896 of 2006 was not taken up on appeal and had therefore attained finality.

7/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

When the defendants were attempting to complete the construction up to the boundary in their property, the plaintiff has come forward with the frivolous suit. The defendants 1 and 2 would submit that they had filed Crl.O.P.No.5858 of 2017 on the file of this Court as the Police had not taken any action on their complaint and this Court by an order dated 19.07.2019 directed the defendants to give a fresh representation. Suppressing all these facts, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit for injunction. The same therefore deserves to be rejected as it is an abuse of process of Court and suppression of material facts.

The plaintiff/first respondent had filed a counter wherein the plaintiff attempts to substantiate the earlier suits, but does not comment upon the suit in O.S.No.5413 of 1989. However, the learned XX Assistant City Civil Court Judge, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the issue, whether the earlier suit would be a bar under the principles of res judicata, cannot be decided at this stage and it should be determined

8/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

only after trial. It is also stated that there was an abuse of process of the Court.

Challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. Though the first respondent/plaintiff served notice, he has not chosen to participate in the proceedings.

A perusal of the records would indicate that with reference to the very same property, the defendants along with their siblings and mother, obtained a decree declaring their right to the said property in O.S.No.5413 of 1989, which was confirmed in A.S.No.18 of 1997 and A.S.No.34 of 1998

filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. After suffering the decree, it appears that the father of the plaintiff herein, T.K.Kalyana Sundaram, has executed a settlement deed in favour of the said Padmavathy on 23.01.2004. On the basis of the settlement, the said Padmavathy appears to have entered into the agreement of sale with the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff has obtained an exparte decree for specific performance in O.S.No.2582 of 2013. The very

9/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

same execution of the settlement deed as well as agreement of sale is without any legal basis, since the plaintiff therein Padmavathy, had no right to the said extent. By virtue of the decree in O.S.No.5413 of 1989, the sale deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiff by a person, who had no right, title or interest to the property.

Therefore, the decree for specific performance, that had been obtained by the plaintiff, is not binding on the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff has, therefore, come to the Court by suppressing the material facts. The suit appears to be a further attempt by the plaintiff and his sister to illegal usurp the property of the defendants 1 and 2. Despite the fact that their father suffered a decree, after contest, where the title of the defendants 1 and 2, their father Asokan and his sister has been declared and the appeal filed by the said T.K.Kalyana Sundaran has also ended in dismissal, the plaintiff is still attempting to claim a right. The instant suit, therefore has to be rejected not only on the ground of abuse of process of Court and suppression of material facts, but also on the ground of locus as the plaintiff

10/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

who has no right to the property, cannot be permitted to maintain the suit. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 23.01.2023 in I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.7669 of 2019 on the file of XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is hereby set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

07.04.2025

ari Index:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order Neutral citation:yes/no

To 1.XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2.The Tahsildar, Mambalam Taluk, Chennai District, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

11/12

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.625 of 2023

P.T.ASHA,J.

ari

C.R.P.No.625 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.4938 of 2023

07.04.2025

12/12

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal by the XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai on 23.01.2023 of defendants 1 and 2's application in I.A.No.5 of 2020 to strike off/reject the plaint in O.S.No.7669 of 2019, on the ground that whether the earlier suit barred the present suit under principles of res judicata could be determined only after trial.¶57
XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai · 23.01.2023
Prior proceeding
Judgment and decree in A.S.No.42 of 1984 (V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) by which S.No.92 was subdivided into S.Nos.92/1 and 92/2, as learnt by the plaintiff.¶43
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.5413 of 1989 (XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai): defendants 1 and 2, together with their mother Tmt.Pattammal, elder sister Sarala and elder brother Asokan, sued T.M.Kalyana Sundaram, the plaintiff's father, seeking declaration that the 'B' schedule property measuring 6.1 feet x 18.9 feet exclusively belongs to them and injunction against him.¶48
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.5413 of 1989 was decreed on 19.09.1996: rights of defendants 1 and 2 and others over the 'B' schedule property were declared and an injunction granted.¶48
Prior proceeding
The decree in O.S.No.5413 of 1989, obtained by the defendants with their siblings and mother, was confirmed in A.S.No.18 of 1997 and A.S.No.34 of 1998.¶63
Prior proceeding
The appeal filed by the plaintiff's side (A.S.No.34 of 1998, referenced at the close of the preceding passage) was dismissed.¶64
Prior proceeding
After suffering the decree, the plaintiff's father T.K.Kalyana Sundaram executed a settlement deed in favour of Padmavathy on 23.01.2004.¶64
Prior proceeding
On the basis of the settlement, Padmavathy entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance in O.S.No.2582 of 2013.¶64
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.2582 of 2013 (V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) for specific performance was decreed on 08.01.2014, by which the plaintiff became owner of the property.¶37
Prior proceeding
Padmavathy's suit O.S.No.7896 of 2006 (XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) for permanent injunction was dismissed as barred by principles of res judicata in view of O.S.No.5413 of 1989 and A.S.No.18 of 1997.¶52
Prior proceeding
In O.S.No.7896 of 2006, Padmavathy had filed the settlement deed dated 23.01.2004 (Ex.A4); perusal of Ex.B3 showed T.M.Kalyana Sundaram had no title to the eastern half of the property covered by Ex.A4, and the settlement deed was observed to be unenforceable and void.¶52
Prior proceeding
The judgment and decree in O.S.No.7896 of 2006 was not appealed and had attained finality.¶52
Prior proceeding
Defendants 1 and 2 had filed Crl.O.P.No.5858 of 2017 in this Court owing to police inaction on their complaint; by order dated 19.07.2019 this Court directed them to give a fresh representation.¶56
Prior proceeding
The first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.7669 of 2019 seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from trespassing, entering, constructing (including compound wall) or interfering with his possession of the suit property.¶31
Prior proceeding
Immediately on notice, defendants 1 and 2 took out I.A.No.5 of 2020 to reject the pleadings, contending the present suit was an abuse of process of the Court, an act of fraud and an attempt to snatch an order by suppressing true facts.¶44