First defendant sought rejection of a suit plaint on grounds of limitation and the Section 34 SARFAESI bar, alleging the plaintiff should have approached the DRT. The plaintiff pleaded fraud in creation of an equitable mortgage. The court held cause of action and limitation are matters for trial and dismissed the application.
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.
A No. 4387 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21/1/2026
C O R A M
THE HON’BLE Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL
Application No.4387 of 2025
K. Venkatesan S/o Kuppulingam No.11/24, 11th Floor, MIG-I, TNHB Anna road, KK.Nagar Chennai 600 078.
… Applicant
Vs
D/o. D. Suriyakani
No.4/11 Mint Street
__________Page 1 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w.
Order VII Rule 11 (a) (d) of CPC to reject the plaint in C.S.No.104 of 2024.
For applicant … Mr.V.G.Anbarasu For respondents … Mr.J.Kamaraj for R.1 Mr.M.Madhu Prakash for R.R.2 and 7. M/s. P. Arul Gnana Prakash for R.6 Mr.M.Vijayakumar for R.8 R.R.3 to 5 - set ex parte
__________Page 2 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
O R D E R
This application has been filed by the applicant/first defendant to reject
the plaint in C.S.No.104 of 2004.
According to the applicant, he is the first defendant in the suit in
C.S.No.104 of 2024 and the suit is filed for the following reliefs:-
(i). to direct the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of
Rs.2,90,00,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of plaint till realization
(ii). To create a lien/charge over the property, viz., the land house and premises bearing Plot No.8 – part, old Door No.16, Present Door No.168, Rangarajapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai and the land in all measuring 1731 ¾ sq. feet and comprised in Block No.39, Survey No.90 of Puliyur Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District more fully described in the Schedule A hereunder or in an alternate
direct the first respondent to re-convey the property viz, in the Registration District of Tindivanam in the Registration Sub-District of Vanur in Vanur Taluk, inThiruchitrambalam Panhayat, Pattanur Revenue Village, in
__________Page 3 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
Nalla Farm House, in Plot Nos.98 and 99, dry land comprised in Old Survey No.19/2-2.25 acres comprised in Resurvey No.73/3, at present subdivision 73/3A1A1A having extent of 14400 square feet and 2050 square feet RCC building Electricity connection No.02-435-016-727 Borewell, 1.5 H.P Motor more fully described in Schedule B property
(iii). To direct the defendants 1 and 2 to refund the sum of money advanced by the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement dated 1/3/2018 after deducting the amount paid, if any
(iv). Permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, servants, plaint A and B schedule properties for sale either private or public or e-auction
(v). costs of the suit and
(vi). Any other reliefs
Agreement of Sale was executed on 1/3/2018 stipulating that the alleged absolute sale deed shall be executed within 90 days from the date of agreement. Accordingly, “date fixed for performance” expired on 28/5/2018. Limitation
__________Page 4 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
period prescribes a period of three years. The suit has been filed only on 5/3/2024 and the limitation period expired on 28/5/2021.
3.1. Even on the alternate case of the plaintiff that an affidavit dated 5/10/2020, allegedly afforded a further period of four months to perform the
contract and the latest date fixed becomes 5/2/2021 and hence, three years period was expired on 5/2/2024. Thus, the suit filed on 5/3/2024 is still beyond time by 29 days.
3.2. It is further averred in the affidavit that Section 34 of SARFAESI
Act, expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts “in respect of any matter” which the DRT/DRAT is empowered to determine under the Act. The first respondent/plaintiff ought to have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, but without approaching the appropriate forum, filed the suit and therefore, in view of the bar under SARFAESI Act, this suit is barred by law.
3.3. Even assuming that the plaintiff seeks to invoke a statutory
purchaser’s charge under Section 55 (6) (b) of Transfer of Property Act, the plaint does not articulate the statutory elements. Therefore, on the above said ground, plaint is liable to be rejected and suit is liable to be rejected.
__________Page 5 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
4.1. The sixth defendant colluding with the applicant created an equitable
mortgage even without pursuing the original parent title deeds. In fact the parental deeds were already handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants 1 and 2 and the same has been filed as plaint documents. Since fraud has been played by the parties, there is no bar under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act to proceed with this case. As far as cause of action is concerned, it is only a bundle of facts. If any of the fact discloses the cause of action, it is sufficient to institute the suit. Therefore, the instant Application is not maintainable either on law or on facts and liable to be dismissed.
__________Page 6 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 7, Mr.P.Arul Guna Prakash, learned counsel for the sixth respondent and Mr.M.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the eighth respondent.
__________Page 7 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
which will be decided only at the time of trial. Since the applicant failed to fulfil the contract of agreement which is prior to the sale of schedule B property, suit is always maintainable.
__________Page 8 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
view of the matter, Section 34 is not a bar to proceed with the case and it requires trail. Since the prayer for return of advance amount is prayed in the plaint, as the limitation is mixed with question of facts, the same can be decided
at the time of trial. It is well settled law that even a single prayer is maintainable the suit is maintainable when the other payers are not maintainable. Further, there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint.
21st January, 2026
mvs/jai
Index: Yes: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________Page 9 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
To
__________Page 10 of 11
A No. 4387 of 2025
P.DHANABAL,J
mvs/jai
Application No.4387 of 2025
21/1/2026
__________Page 11 of 11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaint in C.S.No.104 of 2024 should be rejected as time-barred and barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K. Venkatesan
R.K.Ganesan
K. Suresh Babu
Lavisha
D. Suriyakani
Lalith Kumar Chodiya
P.Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
