Second appeal against concurrent rejection of plaint in a declaratory suit challenging sale deeds of plots said to be earmarked for public purpose. The courts below held the suit barred by limitation and lacking cause of action. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, confirming the plaint's rejection.
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.
SA No. 117 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI SA No. 117 of 2026 & CMP No.3273 of 2026
M.Ramesh S/o.Sampath No.18, Gandipan Vedhachalam Street Chengalpattu Kancheepuram District
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S.Balaji
S/o.Sridhar No.43, Gandipan Vedhachalam Street chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District
2.Santhoshkannan
S/o.Gopal, NO.A9, 9th Cross street, Anna Nagar Chengalpattu Kancheepuram District (The 1st and 2nd respondent is the Plaintiff 1 and 3 in the suit and appellant 1 and 3 in the First Appeal they are not interested to contest the above SA hence they are given up in the above SA)
3.V.Kumar
S/o.Varadappan No.87, Madurai Veeran Koil Street Hanumanthaputheri, Chengalpattu Taluk Kancheepuram District
4.L.Prema
W/o.K.Babu No.26, R.V.Street, Alagesan Nagar Chengalpattu Taluk Kancheepuram District
SA No. 117 of 2026
5.K.Ramadoss
S/o.Kuppusamy Naidu No.25, Gandhi Road, Chitlapakkam, Chennai-64 D.Srinivasan (Died)
6.D.Siva
S/o.P.Devarajan Thottanaval Village, Kunnavakkam Post Uthiramerur Taluk Kancheepuram District
7.S.Kumar
S/o.D.Srinivasan No.B44, 7th Cross street, Annanagar Chengalpattu Taluk Kancheepuram District
8.S.Vennila W/o.D.Siva Thottanaval Village, Kunnavakkam Post Uthiramerur Taluk and Kancheepuram District
9.B.Gopi
S/o.Babu No.6, Periyar Nagar, GST Road Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District
10.A.Vijayakumar
S/o.Ayyadurai 1-J, Devarajanar Street, Vedhachala Nagar Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 03.02.2025 made in AS No.10 of 2019 on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet by confirming the Judgment and decree dated 04.07.2017 made in IA No.914/2015 in OS No.108/2015 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpet.
For Appellant(s): Mr.T. Karunakaran
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Thiagarajan For R3,4,6 To 11
SA No. 117 of 2026
JUDGMENT
Challenging the concurrent findings of the Court below, this Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.
SA No. 117 of 2026
documents to prove that they are residents of Chengalpet and they are well wishers of the locality and they are entitled to file the suit. Whereas, the Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that they have no locus standi to file the suit. Further it is his contention that the suit properties were allotted for public purpose and the lands still remain vacant and it is a Government property and it cannot be purchased by the defendants 7 to 25. Therefore, till date, the municipality has not granted planning permission for construction of building and the suit properties remain vacant. On verifying the encumbrance certificate, the plaintiffs have approached this Court in time. The Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation as the suit has not been filed within three years from the date sale. It is his contention that the Courts below failed to consider that the plaintiffs have filed the suit within three years from the date of their knowledge and hence, the suit has been filed well within the time.
stating that there is no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the Courts below have rightly held that that as the suit is barred by limitation, plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief and hence, rejected the plaint which do not require any interference.
SA No. 117 of 2026
SA No. 117 of 2026
of the sale deeds, they had come forward with the suit as if they came to know about the sale deeds only in the year 2014.
“The learned Single Judge had made certain observation with
regard to the site, which was earmarked for public purpose. Merely because the appellant received application from 10 persons, who are also the occupants of the land in T.S.No.993, it cannot be said that the first respondent is also entitled to the building permit, as a matter of right. The observations made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the merits of the matter made the appellant to file the appeal.”
In the Writ Appeal, this Court granted liberty to the first respondent to submit a comprehensive application for building permit, and the appellant, viz., the Commissioner of Chengalpet Municipality, is directed to consider the application and dispose of the same on merits and as per law.
SA No. 117 of 2026
since the plaintiffs had lost their battle in the Writ Court, after expiry of 14 years
they had filed the present suit, which is barred by limitation. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have contended that they had given various representations to the respondent with regard to improper sale of the suit properties. No such copy of representation has been filed along with the plaint. Admittedly, in the entire plaint averments, the plaintiffs had disputed the validity of purchase made by the defendants 7 to 25 and to declare the sale deeds of the year 2011 as null and void. Even as per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs are reputed persons in the locality. If really, it is true, they ought to have raised objections in the year 2001 itself, when the sale deeds have been registered. Whereas, they had filed the suit only in the year 2015 stating that they came to know about the sale only through the encumbrance certificate obtained in the year 2014 and the same is unbelievable. Hence, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and the trial Court rightly rejected the plaint. The first appellate Court relying on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court elaborately discussed about the point of limitation in paragraphs No.11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 and confirmed the findings of the trial Court, which requires no interference. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law raises in this appeal and there is no merits in this appeal.
SA No. 117 of 2026
of the Courts below. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
12-02-2026
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No
vrc
To,
SA No. 117 of 2026
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
vrc
SA No. 117 of 2026
12-02-2026
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit to declare sale deeds null and void was barred by limitation given plaintiffs' claimed knowledge only from a 2014 encumbrance certificate.
Whether the plaintiffs, claiming to be residents/well-wishers of the locality, had locus standi to file the suit.
Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Ramesh
S.Balaji
Santhoshkannan
V.Kumar
L.Prema
K.Ramadoss
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
