IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Mahindra World City Developers - Petitioner
Versus
M. Natarajan - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 1787 of 2024, C.M.P. No. 9436 of 2024
Decided On : 31.07.2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land exchange and dispute (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against suit's timing and merit (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. supreme court precedent on suit dismissals (Para 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 4. illusory cause of action and limitations criteria (Para 7 , 8 , 14) |
| 5. respondent's justifications for limitations (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's observations on the lack of evidence and belated claims. (Para 13) |
| 7. final ruling based on limitations and evidence (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. conclusion of case and order issued (Para 17) |
ORDER :
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.100 of 2022 filed a petition I.A.No.2 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint in O.S.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu which was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 02.03.2024. Against which, the present petition is filed.
2. The background of the case is that the respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 2022 seeking for cancellation of the Deed of Exchange dated 18.05.2007 registered as Document No.7090 of 2007 on the file of Joint-II SRO, Chengalpattu, the subsequent deed of Rectification of said Exchange Deed dated 29.06.2007 registered as Document No.9088 of 2007 on the file of SRO Joint-II, Chengalpattu and consequently permanent injunction restraining the petitioners, their men and agents interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents over the suit properties. The petitioners approached the respondents who are the absolute and exclusive owners of the suit properties, to an extent of 0.04 cents in Survey No.97/10, an extent of 0.79 cents in Survey No.101/1, an extent of 0.01 cents in Survey No.112/1B1 and an extent of 0.08 cents in Survey No.1B2, totally to an extent of 0.92 cents of Veerapuram Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. The petitioners requested to give the suit schedule properties for consideration and they promised to give same extent of land in Paranur Village, Survey No.146/1 having an extent of 0.35 cents, Survey No.146/2 to an extent of 0.52 cents and Survey No.146/3A to an extent of 0.05 cents by way of executing an exchange deed, in order to enable the defendants to extend their business activities. As agreed by both the petitioners and the respondents, an Exchange Deed was executed on 18.05.2007, pursuant to the Exchange Deed, the respondents handed over physical possession of their properties comprised in Survey Nos.97/10, 101/1, 112/1B1 and 112/1B2 of Veerapuram Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and the petitioners handed over their properties at Paranur Village. Thereafter, the respondents faced intervention from some third parties which was brought to the knowledge of the petitioners and the petitioners suggested to remove Survey No.146/3A having an extent of 0.05 cents from the Exchange Deed by executing the Deed of Rectification and assured to give the same extent in another survey number. Believing their words, the respondents agreed and Deed of Rectification was executed between them on 29.06.2007. Despite several demands made by the respondents, the petitioners failed to give the said extent of 0.05 cents till date and Pattas were mutated. During the month of June 2021, the respondents measured the properties comprised in Paranur Village with the assistance of Firka Surveyor and found there is only 0.80 cents available in Survey Nos.146/1 and 146/2. When enquired, it was found that before execution of the Exchange Deed, there was some dispute between the petitioners and the inhabitants of the Village, who constructed a temple and the petitioners orally waived off the land of 0.12 cents comprised in Survey Nos.146/1, 146/2 and 146/3A of Paranur Village for village temple situated in a corner of the land. By suppressing the above facts, the petitioners entered into an Exchange Deed, thereby got the properties having good and marketable title from the respondent and given disputed and worthless properties to them. After gaining kn
Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and others
Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi
Dilboo (Smt)(Dead) BY LRS and others vs. Dhanraji (Smt) (Dead) and others
T.Arivandandam vs. T.V.Satyapal and another
A suit seeking cancellation of a deed executed 15 years prior is barred by limitation, as the plaintiffs failed to establish a legitimate cause of action within the prescribed period.
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue first accrues when the fact first comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and if a suit is filed beyond the limitation perio....
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.