Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2731 (MAD)

R. Vanaja v. Singamani

2012-06-29

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 8.3.2012 passed by the District Judge, Thiruvallur, in O.S.S.R.No.2885 of 2001 this revision petition has been filed. 2. The long and short of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: The revision petitioner herein filed the plaint in O.S.S.R.No.2885 of 2001 with the following prayer: "To grant a judgement and decree against the defendants: (a) For declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property morefully described in the schedule hereunder consequentially directing the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming under them or acting on their behalf to hand over the possession of the schedule mentioned property within a stipulated period. (b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming under them or acting on their behalf from in any way deal with the schedule mentioned property either by selling, alienating or encumbering or in any manner whatsoever." (extracted as such) However, it was rejected before being numbered, by passing the following order on 8.3.2012: "The plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date of attaining majority. As per the plaint averments, the suit property was purchased by the mother of the plaintiff on 31.4.1980. Kamalabai died on 11.2.1981 leaving behind the plaintiff and her father Ramakrishnan as legal heirs. The plaintiff's father died on 23.1.1998. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title of the suit property. The plaintiff also pleaded that the suit property was sold to the 1st defendant by his father on 23.5.1984. The plaintiff incidentally challenging the validity of the sale dated 23.5.1984. To save limitation she pleads date of knowledge about the transaction. It is settled law that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within 3 years from the date of attaining majority. As per the pleadings of the plaint, the age of the plaintiff is 35 years as on 2011. In the circumstances, the suit for declaration filed on 25.4.2011 challenging the sale deed dated 23.5.1984 and subsequent sale deeds is hopelessly barred by limitation. So the plaint is rejected as barred by limitation. The plaintiff is entitled to refund of entire court fees as per rules.' 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of rejection, this civil revision petition has been focussed. 4. So the plaint is rejected as barred by limitation. The plaintiff is entitled to refund of entire court fees as per rules.' 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of rejection, this civil revision petition has been focussed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would put forth and set forth his arguements to the effect that the lower Court was not justified in simply rejecting the plaint at the threshold itself without numbering it, ignoring the averments in the plaint. 5. A plain reading of the plaint would show that the plaintiff pleaded forgery as though the sale deed dated 23.5.1984 is nothing but an artifact of forgery and impersonation. In other words, the contention of the plaintiff was that her father Ramakrishnan's signature was forged and he was impersonated and that she came to know about it only during the year 2009 and thereafter she filed the suit. 6. The plaint averments would govern the prima facie maintainability of the suit. It is for the plaintiff to prove the averments and get a judgement in her favour, ultimately. In this case, the Court proceeded on the footing as though the sale deed dated 23.5.2984 was ex facie and prima facie a valid document and that within three years after attainment of majority by the plaintiff she ought to have filed the suit and on that main ground the plaint was rejected as though it was bared by limitation. 7. In my considered opinion such an approach is not tenable. No doubt, it may appear that the plaintiff also is bound to pray for declaring the sale deed as null and void in view of the forgery and impersonation averred by her in the plaint. The plaintiff also would plead that possession of the suit property has been with her till date and that the alienee under the sale deed did not take possession of it. The said fact also the plaintiff should prove for getting the suit decreed in her favour ultimately and as of now it is not for the Court, at the entertaining stage itself, simply to assume otherwise and reject the plaint; without giving even an opportunity to put forth the case of the plaintiff, the lower Court was not justified in simply rejecting the plaint. 8. 8. As such, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the plaintiff is directed to carry out the correction by adding additional necessary prayers also relating to the said sale deed; whereupon the lower Court shall number the plaint and process it as per law. 9. By way of disambiguating the ambiguity if any, I would like to make it clear that it is for the Court to resort to Order XIV of CPC and frame even preliminary issues and hear both sides and thereafter, pass suitable orders. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would highlight that after rejection of the plaint, the plaint is only with the Court. If it is so, it is for the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff to make necessary corrections in the plaint by getting formal permission from the Court and whereupon the Court shall number it. 11. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs.