Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH
M. Banupriya
Versus
M. Lakshmi & Others
Application Nos.1238 and 1457 of 2012 in Civil Suit No.801 of 2011
Decided On : 01-10-2012
C.S.No.801 of 2011 - SUIT FOR DECLARATION - REJECTION OF PLAINT - LEAVE GRANTED UNDER CLAUSE 12 OF LETTERS PATENT - SUIT FOR LAND - JURISDICTION - MISJOINDER OF CAUSE OF ACTION - LIMITATION - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - HELD, SUIT IS A 'SUIT FOR LAND' - NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT - PLAINT IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED ON THE GROUND OF MISJOINDER OF CAUSE OF ACTION - SUIT IS HOPELESSLY BARRED BY LIMITATION - SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK OFF FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants numbering 7 for the following reliefs: (i) to declare that the alleged registered Power of Attorney dated 07.12.2005 executed in favour of D2 in respect of Item No.1 of 'A' Schedule property is illegal and the transaction effected by virtue of the same is not binding upon the plaintiff; (ii) to declare that the alleged settlement deed dated 21.12.2005 executed in favour of D1 by D2 in respect of item No.1 'A' schedule property is illegal and is not binding upon the plaintiff; (iii) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.2 of 'A' schedule property and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the same; (iv) to declare that the sale deed dated 24.02.2000 executed by D2 in favour of D3 in respect of item No.1 of 'C' schedule property as null and void and consequently direct D3 to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff; (v) to declare that the sale deed dated 24.02.2000 executed by D2 in favour of D3 in respect of item No.2 of 'C' Schedule property as null and void and consequently direct D3 to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff; (vi) to declare that the gift settlement deed dated 12.04.2000, registered as Doc.No.2601 of 2000 in the office of SRO., Neelankarai in favour of D1 in respect of agricultural lands, being a portion of 'B' schedule property is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff; (vii) to declare that the gift settlement deed dated 12.04.2000, registered as Doc.No.2602 of 2000 in the office of SRO., Neelankarai in favour of D1 in respect of agricultural lands, being a portion of 'B' schedule property is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff; (viii) to declare that the sale deed dated 11.06.2004 executed by D1 and D2 in the name of plaintiff and D1 in favour of D4 in respect of 'B' schedule property and consequently direct D1, D2 and D4 to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff; (ix) to declare that the lease deed dated 08.12.2006 entered into between D6 and D7 in respect of agricultural lands, being a portion of 'B' Schedule property is illegal and is not binding upon the plaintiff; (x) to grant permanent injunction restraining D1 and D2 or their men from alienating, encumbering, or dealing with properties mentioned as items No.1 and 2 of 'A' schedule property; (xi) to grant permanent injunction restraining D3 or his men from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the properties mentioned in 'C' schedule; (xii) to grant permanent injunction restraining D4 to D7 or their men from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the properties mentioned in 'B' schedule; and (xiii) to direct D1 and D2 to render true and proper accounts of the amounts realised on behalf of the plaintiff and also with regard to the investments, realisation of income derived therefrom, requiring settlement of accounts as the agents of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The suit is a 'suit for land' and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of misjoinder of cause of action. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit is liable to be struck off for abuse of process of Court.
Issues: Whether the suit is a 'suit for land'? If so, whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the said suit ? Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of misjoinder of cause of action ? Whether the suit is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation? Whether the suit is liable to be struck off for abuse of process of Court?
Ratio Decidendi: A 'suit for land' is triable under Clause 12 of Letters Patent if the other conditions thereunder are fulfilled. If it is not a 'suit for land' and if part of cause of actin arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, then leave could be granted under clause 12 of Letters Patent. Similarly, if it is a 'suit for land' and if the said land is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, then this Court can entertain the suit. If the suit is 'suit for land' and if the property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Original Side jurisdiction of this Court cannot entertain the suit.
Final Decision: Applications No.1238 of 2012 and 1457 of 2012 are allowed and Civil Suit No.801 of 2011 is struck off from the file of this Court.
R. SUBBIAH, J.
A.No.1238 of 2012 has been filed by 5th defendant to reject the plaint filed in C.S.No.801 of 2011 as against the 5th defendant.
A.No.1457 of 2012 has been filed by 3rd defendant to revoke the order of leave granted in Application No.5079 of 2011 dated 11.11.2011 in so far as against the 3rd defendant pertaining to C schedule properties mentioned in the plaint.
2. In A.No.1238 of 2012, 5th defendant is the applicant and plaintiff is the respondent. In A.No.1457 of 2012, 3rd defendant is the applicant and plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are the respondents. For easy reference, parties are hereafter referred to as arrayed in the civil suit.
3. Before traversing through the averments made in the affidavits filed in both applications for revocation of the order of leave pertaining to 'C' schedule properties and for rejection of plaint, it would be appropriate to narrate brief facts about the case of plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, hereunder:
(a) Plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants numbering 7 for the following reliefs:
(i) to declare that the alleged registered Power of Attorney dated 07.12.2005 executed in favour of D2 in respect of Item No.1 of 'A' Schedule property is illegal and the transaction effected by virtue of the same is not binding upon the plaintiff;
(ii) to declare that the alleged settlement deed dated 21.12.2005 executed in favour of D1 by D2 in respect of item No.1 'A' schedule property is illegal and is not binding upon the plaintiff;
(iii) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.2 of 'A' schedule property and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the same;
(iv) to declare that the sale deed dated 24.02.2000 executed by D2 in favour of D3 in respect of item No.1 of 'C' schedule property as null and void and consequently direct D3 to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff;
(v) to declare that the sale deed dated 24.02.2000 executed by D2 in favour of D3 in respect of item No.2 of 'C' Schedule property as null and void and consequently direct D3 to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff;
(vi) to declare that the gift settlement deed dated 12.04.2000, registered as Doc.No.2601 of 2000 in the office of SRO., Neelankarai in favour of D1 in respect of agricultural lands, being a portion of 'B' schedule property is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff;
(vii) to declare that the gift settlement deed dated 12.04.2000, registered as Doc.No.2602 of 2000 in the office of SRO., Neelankarai in favour of D1 in respect of agricultural lands, being a portion of 'B' schedule property is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff;
(viii) to declare that the sale deed dated 11.06.2004 executed by D1 and D2 in the name of plaintiff and D1 in favour of D4 in respect of 'B' schedule property and consequently direct D1, D2 and D4 to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff;
(ix) to declare that the lease deed dated 08.12.2006 entered into between D6 and D7 in respect of agricultural lands, being a portion of 'B' Schedule property is illegal and is not binding upon the plaintiff;
(x) to grant permanent injunction restraining D1 and D2 or their men from alienating, encumbering, or dealing with properties mentioned as items No.1 and 2 of 'A' schedule property;
(xi) to grant permanent injunction restraining D3 or his men from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the properties mentioned in 'C' schedule;
(xii) to grant permanent injunction restraining D4 to D7 or their men from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the properties mentioned in 'B' schedule; and
(xiii) to direct D1 and D2 to render true and proper accounts of the amounts realised on behalf of the plaintiff and also with regard to the investments, realisation of income derived therefrom, requiring settlement of accounts as the agents of the plaintiff.
(b) According to the plaintiff, she is the cine artist. D1 is her mother and D2 is her elder br
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
