Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1309 (MAD)

K. Krishnamoorthy v. Sivagami

2021-04-15

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 13.10.2020 in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.973 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tambaram and to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents / defendants, their men, agents and anyone acting on their behalf from in any way using the original or copy of the sale deed pertaining to the suit property registered as Document No.92 of 2010 dated 06.01.2010 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram pending disposal of this Civil Revision Petition. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 13.10.2020 in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.973 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tambaram and to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents / defendants, their men, agents and anyone acting on their behalf from in any way using the original or copy of the sale deed pertaining to the suit property registered as Document No.92 of 2010 dated 06.01.2010 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petition filed by him was returned for compliance and the plaint is rejected on the ground that there is no proper cause of action to entertain the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the plaint in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.973 of 2020 by the Court below is unsustainable in law and on facts. As per Section 55(3) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, title deeds of the property should be only with the owner of the property and a suit to enforce this right is available to the owner as against a third party / occupant of a portion of the suit property. He also submitted that the revision petitioner / plaintiff is entitled to have the custody of the title deed and records of the suit property and a suit to enforce this right is perfectly maintainable in law and that the assumption of the District Munsif that the petitioner has voluntarily delivered the title deeds of the suit property to the respondents / defendants is baseless and contrary to para 7 of the plaint. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the conclusion of the Lower Court that the revision petitioner / plaintiff does not have a cause of action to maintain the suit is perverse, non application of mind and premature. Moreover, he submitted that the revision petitioner had to forego reliefs 12(a) and 12(b) for the present since heavy court fee has to be paid by him and such a waiver is valid in law and court permission not required all of which facts have not been considered by the Court below. Furthermore, he submitted that the revision petitioner is a senior citizen and he had been denied of his legal right to ventilate his grievance to enforce his legal right. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 6. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2020 in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.973 of 2020. 7. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has filed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the original sale deed pertaining to the suit property registered as Document No.92 of 2010 dated 06.01.2010 to the plaintiff and to quit the suit property and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, acting on their behalf, from in any way using the original or copy of the sale deed pertaining to the suit property registered as Document No.92 of 2010 dated 06.01.2010 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram. 8. It is also seen from the records that the plaint was returned on 18.09.2020 for the reasons that (i) 1st prayer provision of law, value of the suit and Court fee payable to be mentioned correctly (ii) Deficit Court fee to be paid (iii) Current Market Value and Guideline Value mentioned documents to be filed (iv) Suit property situated in Municipal limit. Hence how the 2nd prayer is maintainable in suit proceedings to be explained (v) Cause of action para to be stated clearly comes under the limitation (vi) In List of documents column 2nd document description to be mentioned correctly (vii) Survey number not tallied with suit property and Document No.2 (viii) 2nd set additional set of documents to be filed and (ix) Fresh docket sheet to be enclosed. 9. 9. The petitioner herein had complied to the above said returns by deleting the first two prayers and restricted himself with only prayer for permanent injunction and represented the same with complied note on 28.09.2020. However, on 29.09.2020, the Registry again returned the plaint for the reason that earlier return is not properly complied with, and raised the queries that (i) Why the legal notice not given to the defendants (ii) Is there any police complaint to be explained (iii) Without seeking the relief of mandatory injunction to return back the original document how the plaintiff is entitled to sought for the prayer 'C' permanent injunction relief and (iv) Without filing a proper petition how the plaintiff is entitled to reserve for right 'A' and 'B' Prayer. The above queries raised were also answered by the revision petitioner and the same has been represented on 07.10.2020. Thereafter, the Registry posted the case for maintainability. On 13.10.2020, the Learned District Munsif at Tambaram had passed the following orders, and thereby rejected the plaint: “Maintainability heard. Available records perused. On the bare reading of the plaint averments, the plaintiff himself admitted that he himself voluntarily handed over the original documents, which is subject matter of the suit, to the defendant and mere apprehension, the plaintiff has come forward with this suit. Hence it is clear that the pleading does not disclose any proper cause of action and one such mentioned in the plaint is not logical one and does not create any civil right in favour of the plaint. Therefore, the plaint is rejected on the ground that there is no proper cause of action to entertain the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC.” 10. The reason given by the Learned District Munsif for rejecting the plaint under threshold in this issue is not justifiable. Merely because the plaintiff has handed over the original documents voluntarily, does not mean to say that there cannot be apprehension that the original sale deed will not be used against the plaintiff. The reason given by the Learned District Munsif for rejecting the plaint under threshold in this issue is not justifiable. Merely because the plaintiff has handed over the original documents voluntarily, does not mean to say that there cannot be apprehension that the original sale deed will not be used against the plaintiff. When the plaintiff who initially sought a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the original sale deed and quit the suit property, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way using the original or copy of the sale deed pertaining to the suit property, the Registry of the District Munsif Court at Tambaram returned the same as to how the 2nd prayer is maintainable when the suit property situated in the municipal limit. When the plaintiff amended the said prayer, the Registry again returned the plaint on the ground that without seeking a mandatory injunction to return back the original document how the permanent injunction relief is maintainable. When the plaintiff restricted his prayer only with permanent injunction, when all the queries were answered, the same was posted for maintainability and the plaint was rejected on the ground that no proper cause of action to entertain the suit. 11. From the above, It is seen that when each and every return has been complied with by the plaintiff, new queries were raised by the Registry which were not raised earlier. This attitude of the Registry in returning the papers filed in piecemeal returns should be deprecated. 12. As far as the present case is concerned, it is clear that the revision petitioner is entitled to have the custody of his title deed which is parted whether voluntarily or involuntarily to the defendants as long as he proves the case in the Trial. The Learned District Munsif ought not to have rejected the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action that too when the plaintiff in his plaint averment has pleaded sufficient cause of action to entertain the suit. Moreover, the suit filed by the respective parties should not be rejected at the threshold even before the same being numbered for flimsy reason that too when the plaintiff on three occasions has modified his prayer as per the returns made by the Registry. 13. Moreover, the suit filed by the respective parties should not be rejected at the threshold even before the same being numbered for flimsy reason that too when the plaintiff on three occasions has modified his prayer as per the returns made by the Registry. 13. At the time of scrutinising the papers filed by the litigants, it is not proper for the Registry to get into the shoes of the litigants and return the papers on the grounds which may be defence for the opposite parties. When scrutinising the papers, the Registry has to follow strict adherence to the guidelines issued to them now and then. No appeal examiner can suggest alteration of a prayer. If at all the Registry has any iota of maintainability of the case, it should immediately bring it to the knowledge of the concerned court for posting it for maintainability and not in piecemeal returns or by inventing new reasons at every returns when the earlier returns were complied by the counsels. All the returns have to be necessarily made at the first instance and not later. 14. As far as the case in hand is concerned, this Court is of the view that the rejection is unwarranted and the suit ought to have been numbered and taken on file. 15. Under these circumstances, the order rejecting the plaint at threshold is unjustified that too when the plaint discloses the cause of action. The matter has to be decided at the time of enquiry in the trial. It is different to the matters to be considered at the time of admission. Therefore, the order rejecting the plaint is set aside and the Lower Court is directed to take the plaint on file and decide the case on merits after hearing both the parties. 16. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.