Claims regarding property must be filed within statutory time limits; failure to act timely extinguishes rights, making the suit an abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.275 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet, for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 11.07.1979 and another sale deed dated 17.07.2021 as null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction not to create any encumbrance over the suit property to an extent of 3 acres and 98 cents comprised in S.No.121A/2 [New S.No.121A/2C1], Guduvanchery Village, Vanalur Taluk, Chengalpet District patta no.30 with four boundaries as described in the plaint schedule property against 9 defendants. On receipt of summons, the 9^th defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint stating that the plaint submitted by the plaintiff as such is frivolous and there is no cause of action for filing the suit and it is clear case of abuse of process of law with other contentions. The said application was contested by the plaintiff by filing his objections. On hearing both sides, the trial Court had allowed the said application by holding that it is a vexatious litigation and the suit has been filed after a lapse of 40 years of the execution of the sale deed was put into challenge with an ill motive and it is an abuse of process of law. Challenging the same, an appeal has been filed in A.S.No.14 of 2022 before the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpet. The first appellate Court also analysed entire facts and circumstances and finally concluded that the suit is absolutely lack of pleadings as to when the cause of action arose to file the suit and also held that the plaintiff has no locustandi to deny the right of the defendants and also held that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law and confirmed the findings of the trial Court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the suit is as follows :

The plaintiff was represented by his power of attorney, viz., P.R.Nangagopal Reddy. The plaintiff is the legal heir of C.V.Chidambaram Chettiar. The plaintiff states that the first defendant possessed an extent of 4.10 acres of punjai land comprised in Survey No.121 A2 and for their business purpose, through their Managing Director Kalidas, they availed financial assistance from his father Chidambaram Chettiar. According to him, his father had lent a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the first defendant and executed necessary documents for the said borrowal and he alleged that the loan was availed on 18.06.1964 and as a security, the original documents pertaining to the said land was handed over through the Managing Director and created a mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds for the said loan. Near about 9 documents were narrated in the plaint averments which were said to be deposit of title deeds and created mortgage. Thereafter, the first defendant transferred the property to their sister concern namely M/s.Raka Chemical and Food Products Ltd., with its debts. The alleged mortgagor has not paid either principal or interest, but handed over the vacant possession of the land measuring to an extent of 2 acres on the northern side of the property to the mortgagee, viz., Chidambaram Chettiar. Thereafter as the mortgagor neither paid the principal nor the interest and by efflux of time, redemption of mortgage has not been made. In the meantime, the said Chidambaram Chettiar also passed away on 10.11.1985.

4. The plaintiff succeeded the legal estate of his father. When the pla