SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Wilson - Petitioner
Vs.
Zion Pentacostal Church, Vellore, rep. by Pastor - Respondent 
C.R.P.(PD).No.4685 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.26185 of 2024
Decided On : 25-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar

A settlement deed's cancellation lacks effect if executed without notice, and a suit for property rights is timely if filed within three years from the discovery of the infringement.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59 - Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of plaint - The petitioner contended that the suit was barred by time and lacked cause of action. The Court found the cause of action arose with the defendants' alleged trespass in 2021, and the suit was filed within the period allowed by law. Parties acted based on a settlement deed executed in 1970, which the defendants sought to cancel without proper notice. The plaintiff's title was accepted as legitimate. The division bench ruling clarified that the cause of action arises when the document is enforced, not when executed. (Paras 9, 12, 13, and 14)

Findings of Court:
The suit was held valid and timely filed as per the relevant legal provisions and there existed a just cause for the plaintiff's claims.

Issues: The primary issues determined include whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation and if there was a valid cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the cancellation was ineffective and that the cause of action came into existence when the defendants attempted to interfere with the Church's possession.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of property ownership and transactions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. defendant's application for rejection of plaint. (Para 5)
3. court's consideration of plaint's averments and its implications. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. arguments regarding limitation and cause of action. (Para 7 , 11 , 12)
5. legal principles related to limitation and cause of action. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. conclusion and 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top