IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
M.MURUGAN – Appellant
Versus
JAYANTHI – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 28.10.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.(PD).No. 4366 of 2024 &
C.M.P.No. 24331 of 2024
1.N.Murugan
2.Amutha Shanmugam
3.M.Kannappan
4.M.Venkatswaran
5.V.Subburam
6.M.Vasanthi 7.J.Jalendran
8.S.Syed Shahajada
9.S.Rajeswari
10.S.Santhi
11.B.Venkatesan 12.A.Venkatesan
13.M.Deivanai
14.M.Senthil
15.R.Vijayasankar
16.S.R.Geetha
17.A.L.Appajiraman 18.A.Saravanaraman
19.S.Prabakaran
20.R.Sumathi
21.T.Parthasarathi
22.K.Rasu
23.S.K.Chinnasamy 24.S.K.Subramanian
25.R.Premraj
26.V.Navaneethakrishnan
27.R.Gunasekaran
28.Jayanthi
29.R.Thangavel
30.Lavanya 31.N.Balaji
32.R.Alamelu
33.V.Sachithanandham
34.V.Govardhanan
35.K.Balasubramanian
36.R.Govindarajan
37.V.Vijaya Ammal 38.V.Shailendranath
39.V.Rajasundaram ...Petitioners Vs.
1.Jayanthi
2.Balasubramanian
3.Arumugam
4.Lakshmi
5.Rajamani
6.Radha
7.Rukmani
8.A.Maninilavan
9.S.Srinivasan
10.L.Paramanandhan
11.M.Dolly Bai
12.B.Sathyapriya
13.K.Gopalakrishnan
14.Usharani
15.R.Soundararajan
16.Suriya Bai
17.V.Rnganathan
18.Bangaru Krishnamoorthy Reddiar
19.R.Subburaya Pathar
20.S.Lakshmi
21.M.Velayudham
22.N.Kalaiselvi
23.The Commissioner Cuddalore City Corporation, Cuddalore – 607 001.
24.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO having office at Capper Hills, Cuddalore – 607 004. ...Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for striking of the plaint in O.S.No.316 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Mukunth Senior Counsel for Mr. M.Kaviveerappan For Respondents : Mr. R.Siddharth
23 & 24 Government Advocate.
ORDER
The case of the plaintiffs is that the property belonged to one Rajamani Ammal. She was married to one Ramachandran. They did not have any issues. Therefore, they brought up one Srinivasa Chettiar as their foster son.
2. Rajamani Ammal executed a "WILL" on 17.10.1929, granting life estate to Srinivasa Chettiar and the reminder issued to the children born to Srinivasa Chettiar. According to them, Srinivasa Chettiar enjoyed the property without having any title to the same.
3. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. They plead that these properties did not belong to Rajamani Ammal but were purchased by Srinivasa Chettiar from one Vijayabalaiya and inturn sold it to Muthukumaraswamy Chettiar. Thereafter, the legal representatives of Muthukumaraswamy formed a layout and sold the properties to petitioners 1 to 39 and respondents 8 to 22.
4. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel pleads that the plaintiff has not produced the documents of title in order to show Rajamani Ammal had declarable interest over the suit property.
Hence, there is no cause of action for the suit.
5. A reading of paragraph No.3 of the plaint shows a specific plea that has been taken by the plaintiff, namely, Rajamani Ammal was the owner of the property.
6. Mr.S.Mukunth is right that the title document of Rajamani Ammal has not been filed. The purpose of Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is to enable a plaintiff, who has not filed documents, to file the same at a later date with the leave of the Court. It is also not unknown for a life estate holder to have alienated his life interest over the property. The plaintiff's claim is that the said Srinivasa Chettiar did not have absolute right to alienate the property.
This pleading discloses cause of action.
7. It is not a case of total lack of cause of action. As argued by Mr.Mukunth, cause of action may be proved to be a false one. Those are matters for Trial. A reading of the plaint shows cause of action exists. Therefore, I am not inclined to strike off the plaint.
8. It is open to the petitioners to file an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and plead before the Trial Court, the present suit is an abuse of process of Court. Subject to this liberty, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
28.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Y
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.