Point of Law: 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.”

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. 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