IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.06.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.No.4366 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.26526 of 2023

1.Pavithra Sagayamary

2.A.Jayanthi ... Petitioners -Vs-

Aranganathan ... Respondent Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur in I.A.No.9/2022 in O.S.No.349/2021 dated 20.04.2023 is even otherwise illegal, incompetent, irregular and without jurisdiction and in any event liable to be set aside.

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Joseph Stalin for M/s.N.Beulah John Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.A.R.Suresh

O R D E R

This civil revision petition arises out of the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur in I.A.No.9 of 2022 in O.S.No.349 of 2021. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in the suit.

2. O.S.No.349 of 2021 is a suit for declaration of the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It also seeks for a declaration that the sale deed dated 12.03.2019 executed in the name of the first defendant is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, her men, agents and subordinates from interfering with the suit schedule mentioned property.

3. On being served with the summons, the defendants took out an application for rejection of plaint. The said application was dismissed, against which the present revision.

4. In matters of rejection of plaint, I only have to go through the plaint and the connected documents and come to a conclusion whether it falls within the four corners of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. I am not concerned with the defence that is raised by the defendants nor with the fact whether the plaintiff will succeed if the the suit goes for trial.

5. Heard Mr.Joseph Stalin for the petitioners and Mr.A.R.Suresh for the respondent.

6. While going through the plaint, the following facts can be culled out. The property was purchased by one Mallika Joseph on 24.12.1993 in Document No.1775 of 1993. The said Mallika Joseph executed a power of attorney in favour of Jeevan Kumar. The said Jeevan Kumar sold the property in favour of one Jayanthi on 15.07.1997. Though according to the plaint the purchaser is Jayanthi it was actually her husband Sigamani, who had advanced the amount for the purchase. From Jayanthi, her husband Sigamani obtained a power of attorney on 28.10.1997. Thereafter, he entered into an agreement of sale with one K.P.Muthu on 21.01.1998 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. K.P.Muthu was unable to maintain the property and thus, with the permission and consent of the said Sigamani, the plaintiff was put in possession of the property.

7. The plaint proceeds to state that K.P.Muthu had approached the owner of the property Jayanthi for the purpose of purchase of the same and she had also agreed to alienate the property in favour of K.P.Muthu. In the meantime, the documents have been seized by the police and they had been returned in October 2003. Thereafter, K.P.Muthu again renewed his request for purchase of the property and since Jayanthi, the second defendant was evading the conversion of the sale agreement into a sale deed, Muthu was constrained to file O.S.No.42 of 2004, a suit for specific performance. The plaint discloses this suit was dismissed for default.

8. The plaint also states that the plaintiff had taken possession of the property on the basis of the permission granted by Sigamani, the power of attorney. Fortunately for the defendant, the plaint discloses that the power of attorney is also no more. The plaintiff, on the strength of his possession of the property under permission and consent of the power of attorney and the agreement holder, seeks to obtain a declaration of title and for the aforesaid reliefs.

9. A decree of a civil court never creates title in a person. All that the civil court does whi