Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2816 (MAD)

Subramanian v. Anbarasan

2022-08-18

J.NISHA BANU

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: CRP filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the Principal District Judge at Namakkal to take up the plaint on file and number the suit in O.S.SR.No.12258 of 2019 filed under Order VII Rule 1 – 6 and Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.) 1. The Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.SR.No.12258 of 2019 and filed this revision as against the return of suit papers without numbering the same. Issuance of notice to respondent is dispensed with as no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. 2. According to the revision petitioner he filed the above said O.S., for himself and on behalf of other creditors. It is further submitted that the debtor Nallammal who is none other than the mother of the defendant/respondent had settled the suit properties in favour of the respondent/defendant and hence, he becomes Universal Donee and therefore, the respondent/defendant is liable to pay to the creditors of debtor Nallammal including the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. It is the further contention of the revision petitioner that the plaintiff paid the court fee both under Section 25(d) and Section 22 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act for both the reliefs claimed in the plaint. 4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner in support of his case, relied on the decisions of this court reported in 1977(2)MLJ 55 [S.Karuppa Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavani, Coimbatore District] ; AIR 1952 Mad 115 [Arumugha Naicker and Ors Vs.A.Kuppuswami Pillai] and 2001 AIHC 4649 [V.N.Jayaraman and others vs. The Commercial Tax Officer and others]. 5. A perusal of the docket sheet of return of the plaint would go to show that the plaintiff i.e, Revision petitioner herein did not know the other creditors of deceased Nallammal and further the plaint did not disclose the cause of action arose between the other creditors and deceased Nallammal. With such view, the plaint has been returned to the plaintiff asking how the suit is maintainable. With such view, the plaint has been returned to the plaintiff asking how the suit is maintainable. The plaintiff having not complied with the objections raised by the office of the the trial court with regard to maintainability of the suit, has come forward with the present revision seeking a direction to the Principal District Judge, Namakkal to take up the plaint on file and number the suit in O.S.SR.No.12258 of 2019 filed under Order VII Rule 1 – 6 and Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 6. In the considered opinion of this court, as far as Money suit is concerned, he can file only for himself. As such, the plaintiff is at liberty to file suit in his individual capacity. But in any event, the petitioner / plaintiff cannot maintain the present suit when he does not know about the other creditors and the amounts due to the other creditors. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to file the present suit which is not maintainable. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner do not relate the present facts of the case. 7. On the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.