IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
M/s. Chinmaya Garden Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, D. Venkatraman & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M/s. Karunya Educational Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, C. Sundarraaraj & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. Nos. 4380 & 4381 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2015
Decided On : 28-06-2023
CIVIL REVISION PETITION - FAIR AND DECREETAL ORDER - ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF C.P.C. - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming 8/9th share in the suit property and also prayed to declare certain deeds null and void. The defendants filed applications to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. contending lack of cause of action and improper court fee.
Finding of the Court:
The trial judge held that the present suit does not hit Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there is a cause of action to file the present suit. The trial court also held that the issues are to be decided in a comprehensive suit by adducing evidence. The applications to reject the plaint were dismissed.
Issues: Whether the present suit is maintainable and whether there is a cause of action to file the present suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the present suit does not hit Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there is a cause of action to file the present suit. The issues are to be decided in a comprehensive suit by adducing evidence.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, and the suit in O.S.No.463 of 2013 was ordered to be rejected. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayers: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 10.08.2015 made in I.A.No.12 of 2014 in O.S.No. 463 of 2013 on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 10.08.2015 made in I.A.No.181 of 2014 in O.S.No. 463 of 2013 on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.)
Common Order:
1. Challenging the impugned common order passed in I.A.Nos.12 and 181 of 2014 in O.S.No.463 of 2013 on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, the present Civil Revision Petitions were filed by the 6th defendant and 1st to 5th defendants.
2. The Revision Petitioners herein are the 6th defendant and 1st to 5th defendants in the suit and the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the above suit in O.S.No.463 of 2013. The 6th defendant therein filed an application in I.A.No.12 of 2014 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint and the defendants 1 to 5 have filed an application in I.A.No.181 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint. The said applications were objected by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. On hearing both sides, the trial judge dismissed both the applications. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.
3. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-
The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming for division of 8/9th share in the suit property and also prayed to declare the release deed, sale deed, gift deeds and exchange deeds are null and void and also to appoint a receiver to take possession of the property along with the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 15. According to the plaintiff, it is a public charitable trust engaged in providing education to the persons in and around Coimbatore and it was looking out for further lands for educational purpose, thereby an extent of 35.17 acres of land owned by the family of one M.S.Sembarichi Gounderwas offered for sale, who derived his title through a family arrangement dated 21.03.1948 along with his brothers and consequently, the said M.S.Sembarichi Gounder and his 7 sons enjoyed the joint family property till his death on 10.07.1981 leaving behind his 7 sons and two daughters and thereafter, they enjoyed the property.
4. The first son of M.S.Sembarichi Gounder viz., N.S.Sembarichi Gounder caused disturbance and for an amicable settlement, the second son of N.S.Sembarichi Gounder, Lakshmana Gounder filed a suit in O.S.No.517 of 1992 before the Sub-Court, Coimbatore for partition and separate possession of 1/9th share in entire property. While the said suit was pending, on 14.02.1996, 8 of co-sharers except the 1st defendant (N.S.Sembarichi Gounder) entered into a sale agreement to sell their 8/9th share to the plaintiff and in pursuance of the said agreement, a sale deed was executed on 22.12.2000 for a valuable consideration and the plaintiff trust was put in symbolic possession of the property conveyed, as the property sold was undivided. The unsold 1/9th share is belong to 1st defendant, but with regard to 8/9th share, title was transferred to this plaintiff and consequently, he stepped into shoes of his vendors, but the 1st defendant manipulated the revenue records by abusing possession of his son and obtained patta in his name by misrepresentation. In pursuance of the said patta, the 1st defendant got mutation of the entire property and changed to his name. So, the plaintiff is unable to produce the patta before the Sub-Registrar for getting the Sale Deed released. Therefore, still their sale deed dated 22.12.2000 is retained by the Sub-Registrar.
5. Further, the 1st defendant along with his sons exchanged 33.12 acres (suit property) in favour of Chinmaya Garden Trust, who is 6th defendant herein through Exchange deed dated 13.10
The court emphasized that the present suit does not hit Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there is a cause of action to file the present suit.
Respondents 1 to 4 are not at all entitled for partition and they are not also in joint and constructive possession of suit property. Court fee paid on the plaint is not correct and respondents 1 to ....
The main legal point established is that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is time-barred, lacks a cause of action, or seeks to reopen a valid previous partition.
A plaintiff asserting ownership based on historical rights and alleged partition must be permitted to pursue relief through trial when faced with disputed claims and questions of fact.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that re-litigating issues already decided in previous suits and filing a suit as a tool of re-litigation constitutes an abuse of process of law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of Orde....
A power of attorney cannot confer title to property, and ownership must be established for granting partition or possession. Individuals may seek partition based on possessory rights, but a valid cau....
The court established that for a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. to be granted, the admissions must be unequivocal and clear, and the presence of serious factual disputes pr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.