C.R.P.No.4760 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.07.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

C.R.P.No.4760 of 2013

and M.P.No.1 of 2013

1.V.Lakshman (died)

2.Sheela Indra Mohan (died)

3.Manjula Lakshman

4.Gokul Lakshman

5.Shobana Lakshman

6.Dhritimaan Vijaykant Mohan

7.Taneesha Devi Mohan

8.Kirtimaan Ajaykant Mohan

(Petitioners 3 to 5 brought on record as

LRS of the deceased 1^st petitioner

vide order dated 28.06.2019

made in CMP 13424 of 2019)

(Petitioners 6 to 8 brought on record as

LRS of deceased 2^nd petitioner

vide order dated 10.07.2023

made in CMP 10612 of 2020)

.. Petitioners

vs

R.Muthu

.. Respondent

Petition filed under Section 115 CPC to set aside the order and

decretal order in I.A.No.672 of 2013 in O.S.No.7 of 2013 on the file

of Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee dated 26.09.2013.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.V.Nandakumar

For Respondent

:

Mr.K.Dhananjayan

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4760 of 2013

ORDER

This revision arises against I.A.No.672 of 2013 in O.S.No.7 of

2013. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell

the mentioned suit schedule property.

2.

Previously, parties had litigated by presenting a plaint in

O.S.No.350 of 1994. The said suit was for bare injunction. In that

suit, the plea of the plaintiff, who was also the plaintiff in that suit

was that the civil revision petitioner was not the owner of the

property and that he had purchased the same from one Durairaj on

19.09.1991. The suit was dismissed. The appeal suit was allowed.

The second appeal therefore was allowed. In fine, the suit for

injunction stood dismissed. The present plaint also reads that on

21.12.2012, the plaintiff had approached the defendant in the

present suit to alienate the property for a sum of Rs.4,000/-. It is

his case that the civil revision petitioner / defendant had agreed to

alienate the property for the said sum and had thereafter referred

to execute the sale. Hence the suit for specific performance.

3.

Mr.V.Nandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would vehemently contend that the cause of action is illusionary and

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4760 of 2013

the defendant had never agreed to sell the property for a sum of

Rs.4,000/-.

4.

Whether the plaintiff and defendant had entered into an

agreement and whether the defendant received consideration of

Rs.4,000/- are triable issues. They do not fall within the four

corners of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. While dealing with an application

for rejection of plaint, this Court has to take the averments made in

the plaint as true and genuine. It is a plea in demurrer. That plea in

demurrer implies that the Court looks only into the plaint and the

plaint documents alone. Paragraph 14 of the plaint reads that the

plaintiff had given a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 03.12.2012 to the

defendant and the defendant had also agreed to alienate the same.

5.

I am not going into the truth or veracity of the

averments as I cannot do so. The same has to be brought out only

at the time of the trial. Further, the argument that the suit is hit by

Order II Rule 2 CPC also does not appeal to me. This is because as

the cause of action that is pleaded is subsequent to the cause of

action in O.S.No.350 of 1994. O.S.No.350 of 1994 was predicated

only on the basis of settled possession. In that suit, he had disputed

the title of the defendant. In the present suit, he concedes to the

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4760 of 2013

title of the defendant and pleads that parties had subsequently

entered into a sale agreement. The cause of action for the suit for

injunction and the cause of action for the present suit for specific

performance are different. Therefore, the suit is not hit by Order 2

Rule 2 of CPC. The finding rendered by me is only with respect to

dealing with rejection of pla