The suits were determined to be barred under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, except for one property which was deemed exempt under the Act's provisions.

ORDER :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. C.R.P(MD).No.125 of 2019 has been filed by the defendants 1 , 3 and 4 in O.S.No.201 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli to strike off the plaint.

2. C.R.P(MD).No.210 of 2019 has been filed by the sole defendant in O.S.No.1087 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy to strike off the plaint.

3. Both the revisions have been filed seeking to strike off these two suits on the ground that they are barred under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

(A) Facts leading to the filing of these revisions are as follows:

4. One Chellappa Gounder had passed away on 06.11.1997 leaving behind him his wife Thirumayi Ammal, his daughters Yogambal and Amudha and his son Kathiresan as his legal heirs. Daughter Yogambal's son is Kumaresan. Thirumayi Ammal had passed away on 22.09.2012 and her son Karthiresan had passed away on 24.06.2009. The legal heirs of the deceased son Karthiresan are his wife Valarmathi and his daughters Jothipriya and Anu Priyanka. These facts are not in dispute.

5. O.S.No.201 of 2018 has been filed by the legal heirs of Kathiresan for the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners and for consequential permanent injunction. There are three items of properties are shown in the suit schedule. As per the plaint averments, the first item of the suit schedule property was purchased by Kathiresan from and out of his own fund, but he had included his father Sellappan and sister Yogambal as co-purchasers along with him. Therefore, the suit first item is the exclusive property of Kathiresan.

6. The plaintiffs had further contended that Kathiresan had purchased the suit second item of property in the name of his sister Amudha by way of a sale deed dated 06.06.1983 and therefore, the said Kathiresan is the exclusive owner. The plaintiffs had further averred that the third item of the property though it is purchased in the name of mother of Kathiresan namely Thirumayi Ammal, it was only purchased out of the funds of Kathiresan and therefore, he alone is the exclusive owner. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, all the three properties are the exclusive properties of Kathiresan and after his death, it has devolved upon them and therefore, they have prayed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

7. O.S.No.1087 of 2018 has been filed by the legal heirs of Kathiresan for the relief of declaration that they are absolute owners and for permanent injunction with regard to two items of properties. These two items are not part of the schedule in O.S.No.201 of 2018.

8. According to the plaintiffs, Kathiresan had entered into an agreement of sale for purchasing the suit schedule properties in his name on 13.06.2008. However, due to advise of his astrologers, a sale deed was registered in the name of the defendant Kumaresan who is the son of Yogambal. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, Kathiresan is the exclusive owner of the property though the title deeds stands in the name of Kumaresan. Hence, they have prayed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

9. The present revision petitions have been filed by the respective defendants in both the suits to strike off the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred under the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

(B) Contentions of the counsels appearing on either side.

10. The learned Seni