Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, T. KRISHNAVALLI, JJ.
Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Venturetech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Original Side Appeal Nos. 24, 105, 106, 140, 141, 143 of 2019, Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1564, 9727, 12267, 12268 and 12278 of 2019
Decided On : 19-06-2020
Limitation Act – Section 14 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order II Rule 2 – Permanent Injunction – Respondent has filed the suit in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 against the appellant in OSA No. 105, 106 and 143 of 2019 viz., Conveyors India Fabrications Private Limited praying to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from in any manner alienating or encumbering the plaint described property to third party other than the plaintiff. – The property described in the plaint schedule is the land and superstructure bearing Plot No. 66, Old No. 42, Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai measuring 2992 square feet in Survey No. 220 part in Mannur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. – Held, Amendments sought to be incorporated by the respondent/plaintiff in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, would amount to claiming a relief beyond the period prescribed by the law and consequently, such amendments sought for are hit by the provisions of Order VII Rule 6 of CPC. – Furthermore, Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only when the subsequent suit in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed in a Court, which suffers from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature that the suit could not be entertained. – In the present case, the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed before the proper Court but the suits were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court not on the ground that the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits but the suits were filed contrary to the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. – In other words, unless the respondent/plaintiff shows that the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 came to an end on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, it cannot be construed to be an attempt on the part of the respondent/plaintiff made in good faith. – When the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed only before the proper Forum, the time spent for prosecuting those suits ought not to have been excluded by the learned single Judge to permit amendments to be made in the present suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. – if the relief of specific performance is permitted to be included in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the suits will not fall within the classification of "suit for land". – This submission of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff also cannot be accepted in view of the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005. In Clause 7 of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005, it was clearly stated that "The Vendor shall deliver vacant possession of the property to the purchaser at the time of the execution of the deed of sale.". – It is clear that upon execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, the vendor-defendants are bound to part with the possession of the property. – Court is of the view that the nature of amendment sought for by the respondent/plaintiff will certainly fall within the classification of "suit for land". – Thus, the amendment to include the relief of specific performance would alter the classification of the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 into one of "suit for land". – Appeals Allowed
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
1. All these six Original Side Appeals arise out of a common order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in various applications filed during the pendency of two suits, namely C.S. No. 831 and 833 of 2005. Both the suits were filed by the respondent in these appeals, viz., M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai.
2. The respondent has filed the suit in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 against the appellant in OSA No. 105, 106 and 143 of 2019 viz., Conveyors India Fabrications Private Limited praying to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from in any manner alienating or encumbering the plaint described property to third party other than the plaintiff. The property described in the plaint schedule is the land and superstructure bearing Plot No. 66, Old No. 42, Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai measuring 2992 square feet in Survey No. 220 part in Mannur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
3. The other suit in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant in OSA Nos. 24, 140 and 141 namely M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd., for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from alienating or encumbering the property described in the schedule of the plaint to third parties other than the plaintiff. The property described in the schedule of the plaint in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 is the land and superstructure bearing Plot No. 65, Old No. 43, Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai measuring 39375 square feet in Mannur/Mogappair Village, Thiruvallur District.
4. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the cause of action for both the suits arose out of two agreements of sale, both dated 27.07.2005. The agreements were entered into between the respondent herein with the respective appellant, whereby the appellants, who are the owners of the land covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005, agreed to sell the same to the respondent/plaintiff. The properties covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005 are adjacent properties. In other words, the properties covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005 are contiguous and they are situated in Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai.
5. As per the averments in the plaint in C.S. No. 831 of 2005, the appellant and the respondent entered into the agreement dated 27.07.2005, by which the appellant agreed to sell the properties mentioned above to the respondent herein. The recitals in the agreement dated 27.07.2005 would indicate that the total sale consideration agreed between the parties to the suit in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 was Rs. 25 lakhs. On the date of agreement, the respondent/plaintiff paid Rs. 5 lakhs as sale advance. The agreement also makes it incumbent on the part of the respondent/plaintiff to pay another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on 26.08.2005 and the balance sum of Rs. 15 lakhs at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The agreement stipulates that the contract has to be concluded within a period of six months. There was a specific recital in the agreement dated 27.07.2005 to the effect that the transaction is subject to the approval of title by the advocate of the respondent/plaintiff.
6. In the other suit in C.S. No. 833 of 2005, the respondent/plaintiff contended that the total sale consideration fixed was Rs. 3,55,00,000/-, out of which the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs on the date of agreement. As per the covenants contained in the agreement dated 27.07.2005, the respondent/plaintiff in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 is required to pay another sum of Rs. 45 lakhs on or before 26.08.2005 and the balance sum of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- is payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. Here again, the time for performance of the sale transaction is fixed as six months subject to approval of title by the plaintiff's advocate.
7. In the plaint in C.S. No. 831 and 833 of 2005, it was contended, in unison, t
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
