Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4206 (MAD)

M. Perumal v. Vijayakumari

2016-12-21

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2016
ORDER : M.V. Muralidaran, J. The defendants are the revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.182 of 2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 dated 31.10.2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for declaration and for permanent injunction. After filing the written statement, this petitioners/defendants have filed the present I.A.No.182 of 2011 under Order 7, Rule 11 (1) of CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground of no cause of action. 3. The case of the petitioners/defendants is that the first defendant's father Munusamy Gounder, who was the sole and absolute owner of the property of Nanja land comprised in S.No.121/1, measuring to an extent of 25 cents, situated at T. Thangal Village, Agarakorakottai Madura, Thellar Sub-Division, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. 4. During the life time, the first defendant's father Munusamy Gounder had settled the property in favour of Mrs.Vijayakumari/the first plaintiff herein as per the settlement deed dated 06.08.1985 registered as Doc.No.1631 of 2010 on the file of the S.R.O., Thellar. After registering the said settlement deed, the first defendant namely Vijayakumari has became absolute owner of the entire land. 5. While being so, on 26.05.2010, the first respondent/first plaintiff has sold the land to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. as per the sale deed in Doc.No.1631 of 2010, on the file of the S.R.O., Thellar on 26.05.2010 in favour of the first defendant and from that day onwards, the first defendant became the sole and absolute owner of all that vacant plot measuring to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. (around 4 cents), comprised in Old S.No.121/1 and New S.No.121/1D situated at T. Thangal Village, Agarakorakottai Madura, Thellar Sub-Division, Vandavasi Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, bounded on the North by remaining property of Mrs. Vijayakumari, South by remaining property of Mrs. Vijayakumari, East by Thellar Co-operative society employees vacant plot, West by T.Thangal Road. 6. The first respondent also come forward by saying that after purchasing the said property, the first defendant has started constructing a house in his property, when the construction work was in progress in the first petitioner's property, the first plaintiff with an ill advice of some parties, started demanding some more money without any basis. 6. The first respondent also come forward by saying that after purchasing the said property, the first defendant has started constructing a house in his property, when the construction work was in progress in the first petitioner's property, the first plaintiff with an ill advice of some parties, started demanding some more money without any basis. The first defendant also states that recently he has completed the house construction in his property and he has been owning, possessing and enjoying the same till date without any hindrance from any quarter peacefully. But, at the time of Grahapravesam, the first respondent/first plaintiff again with malafide intention to grab money by hook or crook, illegally demanded the huge money from the first defendant with an ulterior motive knowing fully well that the value of the first defendant's property has gone up. 7. The first defendant also states that this petitioners/defendants never tress passed and attempted to make compound wall in the first plaintiff's property on 01.09.2010 and 01.12.2010 or any other date. They also undertake that they will not trespass and make any kind of construction in the first plaintiff's property, but the first defendant has constructed the house only in his property. 8. The petitioners/defendants also state that when the first respondent/first plaintiff sold the land to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. (around 4 cents) in favour of the first plaintiff out of the suit schedule property i.e. 25 cents, she cannot seek the relief of declaration in respect of entire suit property and she filed the above suit fraudulently. Therefore, there is no cause of action against the defendants or against the first defendant's property in the above suit and hence he filed the above application for rejecting the plaint on two grounds that there was no cause of action arising in the suit against the defendants. 9. Heard Mr. V. Bhiman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and none appearing for the respondents, but their names were shown in the cause list. 10. Admittedly, the case of the first petitioner/first defendant is that she has purchased the property to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. (around 4 cents of land) in the suit schedule of property from the first respondent/first plaintiff for the sale consideration of Rs.17,000/- and the said document was registered as Doc.No.1631 of 2010 dated 26.05.2010, on the file of the S.R.O. Thellar. ft. (around 4 cents of land) in the suit schedule of property from the first respondent/first plaintiff for the sale consideration of Rs.17,000/- and the said document was registered as Doc.No.1631 of 2010 dated 26.05.2010, on the file of the S.R.O. Thellar. The said land in S.No.121/1 situated at T. Thangal Village, Agarakorakottai Madura, Thellar Sub-division, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. 11. The case of the petitioners are that the first petitioner's father late Munusamy Gounder and the first plaintiff Mrs. Vijayakumari are the absolute owners of the properties in punja land comprised in S.No.121/1, situated at T.Thangal Village, Agarakorakottai Madura, Thellar Sub-division, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, measuring an extent of 25 cents. 12. During the life time of Munusamy Gounder, he had settled the entire land consisting of 25 cents in favour of Mrs. Vijayakumari wife of Late. Annamalai by way of a settlement deed registered vide Doc.No.676 of 1985, dated 06.08.1985 and the said document was registered at S.R.O. Thellar. Out of the said 25 cents of land, the first plaintiff Mrs. Vijayakumari had sold a part of the properties to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. of property (around 4 cents of land) and the said document was registered as Doc.No.1631 of 2010, on the file of the SRO, Thellar dated 26.05.2010. Therefore, it is made clear that after purchasing the said property of 4 cents i.e. 1681 sq. ft., this first petitioner/first defendant has become the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule of property. The 4 cents of land was bounded on the North by: Remaining property of Mrs. Vijayakumari, South by: Remaining property of Mrs. Vijayakumari, East by: Thellar Co-operative Society Employees' vacant plot, West by: T.Thangal Road. 13. It is the case of the first petitioner/first defendant is that when he was proceed with the construction of a house in his property, on ill-advice of some third parties, the first respondent/plaintiff demanding some more money for selling of the property without any basis. But, the first petitioner/first defendant has not complied her request, and thereafter, he has completed the house construction in the above said property and he has been owning, possessing and enjoying the same till date without any hindrance from any quarter peacefully. 14. But, the first petitioner/first defendant has not complied her request, and thereafter, he has completed the house construction in the above said property and he has been owning, possessing and enjoying the same till date without any hindrance from any quarter peacefully. 14. The first petitioner/first defendant also states that at the time of Grahapravesam, the first respondent/first plaintiff again with malafide intention to grab money by hook or crook illegally demanded huge money from the first petitioner/first defendant with an ulterior motive by saying that the value of the property has gone up. But, even then the first petitioner/first defendant has not yielded her request. 15. While being so, this respondents/plaintiffs has filed the above suit in O.S.No.1 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Vandavasi, by impleading the other petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 for a declaration, declaring that the entire suit schedule of property to an extent of 25 cents of land are belongs to the plaintiffs and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the respondents. 16. In the plaint, this plaintiff has filed the suit for the prayer in para-10 it is stated as follows: xxxx 17. On receipt of the summon in the above suit, this petitioners/ defendants also filed the written statement denying the entire allegations. 18. While pendency of the above suit, this petitioners/defendants were filed in I.A.No.182 of 2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) on the ground that there was no cause of action for filing this suit in O.S.No.1 of 2010. The petitioners/defendants also states that the reason in the affidavit as follows: "(A) The 1st plaintiff having sold 1681 sq. ft. (around 4 cents) out of the total 25 cents in the suit schedule property to me on 26.05.2010 has no right to file a suit for declaration for entire 25 cents. (B) The suit is a fraudulent one and it is filed with an ulterior motive of extorting money from me. (C) All the plaintiffs are fraudulently filed the suit. (D) From 26.05.2010 I became the absolute owner of 1681 sq. ft., by virtue of Sale Deed dated 26.05.2010, Reg. Doc.No.1631/2010, SRO, Thellar, being executed by the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff herein in my favour. (i) I am the sole and absolute owner of said 1681 sq. ft. (C) All the plaintiffs are fraudulently filed the suit. (D) From 26.05.2010 I became the absolute owner of 1681 sq. ft., by virtue of Sale Deed dated 26.05.2010, Reg. Doc.No.1631/2010, SRO, Thellar, being executed by the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff herein in my favour. (i) I am the sole and absolute owner of said 1681 sq. ft. (ii) The plaintiffs have absolutely no right whatsoever (E) The 1st plaintiff can seek declaration only for 21 cents and not more. (F) The possession is with me in respect of said 1681 sq. ft." Therefore, there was no cause of action for filing the suit for entire property of 25 cents. 19. It is also came to know through records that when the respondents/plaintiffs particularly the first respondent/first plaintiff once she sold the property to an extent of 1681 sq. ft. (around 4 cents of land) on 26.05.2010 registered in Doc.No.1631 of 2010, on the file of the S.R.O., Thellar in favour of the first petitioner/first defendant, there was no whispered about the said sale transactions between the first petitioner/first defendant and the first respondent/first plaintiff, in the plaint in O.S.No.1 of 2011. 20. When I perused the typed set filed by the petitioners/defendants in page No.7, a sale deed was enclosed, which was executed by the first respondent/first plaintiff in favour of the first petitioner/first defendant and it was registered in Doc.No.1631 of 2010, dated 26.05.2010, on the file of the S.R.O. Thellar. Out of 25 cents, the first respondent/first defendant has sold 1681 sq. ft. (around 4 cents of land) in favour of the first defendant as per the sale deed dated 26.05.2010. 21. On perusal of the above records, it clearly shows that the respondents/plaintiffs particularly, the first respondent/first plaintiff has played fraud on the Court that out of 25 cents, the first respondent/first plaintiff had sold 4 cents of land i.e. 1681 sq. ft. of land to the first petitioner/first defendant. Then, how he has filed the suit for entire property consisting of 25 cents, as if he was the owner of the entire 25 cents of property. Therefore, that itself shows the malafide intention and fraud played on the Court by the plaintiffs. 22. As per the provisions under Order 7, Rule 11, it is stated as follows: "11. Then, how he has filed the suit for entire property consisting of 25 cents, as if he was the owner of the entire 25 cents of property. Therefore, that itself shows the malafide intention and fraud played on the Court by the plaintiffs. 22. As per the provisions under Order 7, Rule 11, it is stated as follows: "11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] [(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]" 23. On fair reading of the above provisions, it made clear that when no cause of action for filing the suit, the defendant can file petition under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) for rejection of the plaint. Accordingly, this petitioners/defendants have filed the above I.A.No.182 of 2011 for rejecting the plaint, no cause of action in filing the suit. 24. It is made clear that when the first respondent/first plaintiff has sold 4 cents of land, she has no right to file the suit for the entire property of 25 cents for declaration, declaring the plaintiff is the owner of the entire 25 cents of land. 24. It is made clear that when the first respondent/first plaintiff has sold 4 cents of land, she has no right to file the suit for the entire property of 25 cents for declaration, declaring the plaintiff is the owner of the entire 25 cents of land. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioners/defendants for rejecting the plaint that there was no cause of action for filing the suit is absolutely correct. Once the first respondent/first plaintiff has sold the 4 cents of land out of 25 cents, she can file suit only for 21 cents out of 25 cents. Therefore, it is made clear that there was no cause of action for filing the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2011. 25. But, without gone through the records and without giving the proper appreciation of the claim of the petitioners/defendants, since on record it made clear that the first respondent/first plaintiff has sold 4 cents of land, the learned Judge had simply stated that the prayer sought for the rejection of the plaint should be decided only in the trial and the interference of the defendant also to be considered. 26. It is very unfortunate and shock and surprise that once the plaintiffs have approached the Court by suppressing the fact about the sale of the portions of the land and sought for the prayer for declaration, declaring the title of the plaintiffs for the entire properties of the 25 cents, which is absolutely amounts to fraud played by the plaintiffs particularly, the first respondent/first plaintiff on the Court. Therefore, it is made clear that there was no cause of action for filing the suit. 27. Time and again, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that when the Courts below has considering the applications filing by the litigants, they should apply their mind in a proper manner and they should decide the applications with judicial conscious. But, in my opinion, the case in hand it is absolutely lack on the part of the learned Judge, namely the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi. 28. In the above circumstances, it is absolute necessarily of this Court for interference of the order passed by the learned Judge and accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is ought to be allowed by setting aside the order. 29. 28. In the above circumstances, it is absolute necessarily of this Court for interference of the order passed by the learned Judge and accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is ought to be allowed by setting aside the order. 29. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, by setting aside the order passed in I.A. No.182 of 2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2011, dated 31.10.2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai District and the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2010 is struck off from the file. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.