Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2764
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Wilson - Petitioner
Versus
Zion Pentacostal Church, Vellore, rep. by Pastor, Immanuel Paul, S/o. Paul – Respondent
C.R.P.(PD).No.4685 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.26185 of 2024
Decided On : 25-11-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.A. Sudesh Kumar.
A cause of action for enforcing property rights arises upon actual dispute or trespass, not at the deed's execution. Claims are timely if filed within the limitation period following knowledge of interference.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59 - Cancellation of Settlement Deed - The plaintiff claimed title to property based on earlier deeds. The court held a cause of action existed as defendants' attempts to interfere were deemed trespass. Limitation began upon discovery of the interference in 2021, and thus, the suit was filed timely. The court affirmed that the cancellation of the settlement deed by the wife of the original owner, absent notice, does not eliminate the plaintiff's title rights. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
(B) Cause of Action - In determining cause of action for enforcement of a deed, it arises not at execution but upon the document being sought for enforcement against an opposing party. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The church claims possession based on deeds dating back to 1970 and 1971, countering attempts by the wife of the original owner to cancel prior deeds and sell the property. The defendants attempted trespass in 2021, prompting the suit.
Findings of Court:
The court found the plaintiff presented sufficient grounds for a cause of action and timely suit despite claims of limitation.
Issues: Whether the cancellation deed executed after decades by the original owner's spouse is valid, and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the original owner's legal representatives cannot cancel title deeds without notice, and the limitation period begins upon discovery of trespass, not at deed execution.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership history and property donations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's analysis of legal proceedings. (Para 5 , 8 , 15) |
| 3. plaintiff's cause of action and title justification. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. limitations and cause of action under law. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. judicial dismissal of the petition. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2021 dated 19.01.2024.
2.The civil revision petitioner is the 7th defendant to the suit. The respondent/plaintiff is a Church established about 60 years ago. One of its followers, namely, one Jeevarathinam had donated 7 ½ cents in favour of the Church on 12.06.1970. Subsequently, on 15.06.1970, he sold another extent of 5.5 cents to the plaintiff, after receiving valuable consideration. On 12.11.1971, he executed one more Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff to an extent of 1120 sq ft. All these deeds covered properties situated in Survey No.1777 of Vada Vellore Village, Vellore Town.
3.The plaintiff pleaded that on these properties, a Church has been constructed and the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The settlor cum vendor of the aforesaid documents, namely, Mr.Jeevarathinam passed away on 22.03.1989. Thereafter, the 1st defendant, namely the wife of the said Jeevarathinam, started giving pinpricks to the plaintiff. She allegedly threatened to cancel the settlement deed executed by her husband two decades earlier. The plaintiff pleaded that after a period of 38 years from the date of execution of the Settlement deed, a cancellation document was executed by the wife of said Jeevarathinam namely, the 1st defendant.
4. Not being satisfied with the cancellation of the Settlement deed, the 1st and 7th defendants executed Sale deeds for the very same property on 31.03.2009 and the 7th defendant also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant on 06.11.2019. On the strength of this power of attorney, sale agreements were had been entered into. On the strength of these documents, the plaint proceeds that the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on 09.01.2021, 13.02.2021 and 24.03.2021. Being left with no other option, the plaintiff came forward with the suit for following reliefs:
“a) Declare the Cancellation Deed Doc. No.5985/2008 dated 27/05/2008 executed by 1st defendant at the 12th defendant register office is illegal, Null and Void, and Unenforceable.
b) Declare the sale Deed Doc.No.2875/2009 dated 31/03/2009 executed between 1st defendant and the 7th defendant at the 12th defendant registrar office is illegal, Null and Void, and Unenforceable.
c) Declare the Power of Attorney Deed Doc.No.9650/2019 dated 06/11/2019 executed by 7th defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant at the 12th defendant registrar office is illegal, Null and Void, and Unenforceable.
d) Declare the Sale Agreement Deed Doc.No.9694/2019 dated 06/11/2019 executed between 7th defendant (through power agent 2nd defendant) and defendants D-8 to D-10 at the 12th defendant registrar office is illegal, Null and Void, and Unenforceable.
e) Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants D1 to D10, their men, agents, representatives etc from any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment the schedule mentioned property i.e., Zion Pentecostal Church, situating in survey No.1777 of vada- vellore village (now T.S.1777/1A of R.W.II of Vellore Town) measuring 7.5 cents and bearing door no.8 pallar river bund, Near New Bus Stand, Vellore more fully described in the suit schedule.
f) Grant Permanent Injunction restraining the 11th defendant from any manner causing mutation of revenue records and name transfer etc., in survey No.1777 of vada- vellore village (now T.S.1777/1A of R.W.II of Vellore Town) based upon the fraudulent documents of the defendants D-1 to D-10.
g) Direct the 12th defendant Joint/Sub-registe
