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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57870

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
Dr.Gurusamy Mudaliar Thondamandala Thuluva Vellala Higher Secondary School, Managing Committee – Appellant
Versus
Malleeswari – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.522 of 2011|O.S.No.10802 of 2010|C.S.No.1038 of 2008



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Sadasharam
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Kannan

A suit for declaration of title is barred by limitation if not filed within the prescribed period, requiring the plaintiff to prove title for relief.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Suit for declaration of sale deed as null and void - The plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation as the suit was filed nearly 30 years after the cause of action arose - The court emphasized that the entire plaint must be read as a whole to ascertain whether a cause of action exists, and not in isolation. (Paras 10, 12, 16)

(B) Jurisdiction - The trial court must consider the entire pleadings and cannot reject a plaint based on selective excerpts - The plaintiff must prove title in a declaration suit, and the absence of title leads to dismissal. (Paras 12, 17)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought to declare a sale deed null, alleging fraud and claiming ownership of property based on a will. The defendants countered that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked cause of action.

Findings of Court:
The court found the plaintiff's suit barred by limitation and upheld the trial court's rejection of the plaint.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the plaintiff had a valid cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff's failure to file the suit within the limitation period extinguished any claim, and the trial court's reliance on the entire plaint for its decision was justified.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of property ownership and will. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defendants' arguments against the plaintiff's claims. (Para 4 , 5)
3. legal issues related to limitation and jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 10 , 12)
4. court's analysis on interpreting pleadings and limitations. (Para 7 , 8 , 11)
5. final ruling on the appeal and confirmation of the lower court's order. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit is filed to set aside the Order dated 29.04.2011 passed in I.A.No. 2611 of 2011 in O.S.No. 10802 of 2010 (C.S.No. 1038 of 2008) on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The suit was filed by Dr.Gurusamy Mudaliar Thondamandala Thuluva Vellala Higher Secondary School Managing Committee represented by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent, as Plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 registered as Document No.697 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet, Chennai executed by the Defendants 1 to 4 to and in favour of the fifth Defendant is null and void and vitiated by fraud and collusion played by the Defendants with respect to the suit property; directing the fifth Defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the first floor of the suit property; for consequential permanent injunction restraining the Defendants herein, their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property; directing the fifth Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards past damages for wrongful use and occupation of the first floor of the suit property; directing the fifth Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards future damages from the date of plaint till the date of handing over of vacant possession of the suit property; for cost of the suit and such other further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. The brief averments in the plaint are extracted as follows:-

3.1. The Plaintiff's School is run by a Trust. The property bearing Old No.15, New No.8, Rathina Mudali Street, Kondithope, Chennai - 600 079 namely an extent of 1152 sq.feet of house site with a building thereon is the suit property. It belonged to late Rajammal daughter of Venkatarayalu Thevar who was a spinster. She had purchased the suit property from one Bansilal, under a registered Sale Deed dated 25.09.1933 bearing Document No. 1118 of 1933 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sowcarpet. The above said Rajammal had no issues to succeed to her estate. The said Rajammal had executed a registered will dated 31.01.1963 by which she had given disposal of her estate namely the suit property and she had also appointed one Mr.S.Chandrasekara Mudaliar as the Executor to administer the suit property. Under the said Will, the Testatrix, Rajammal, had directed the Executor to pay a part of the rental income after deduction of expenses towards repairs, taxes etc to her own blood brother, late Subramania Thevar, and after his death, to his wife late Sivammal, till her life time on the one part, and another part of the rental income is to be given to Mrs. Varalakshmi, the daughter of the brother of the Testatrix, namely Sundara Ramanajulu Thevar. She had also imposed a condition that both Subramania Thevar and Varalakshmi have only life interest over the suit property. Therefore, there was no condition in the Will to the effect that after the life time of Varalakshmi, the legal heirs of late Varalakshmi are entitled to the said life interest. Under the Will, the Testatrix had stated that after the life time of Subramania Thevar and his wife Sivammal, the Executor shall sell the suit property and purchase a property in the name of Mrs. Varalakashmi for a sum not exceeding Rs. 15,000/- or shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in cash to Varalakshmi or deposit in GP notes. The said sum of Rs. 15,000/-, and from and out of th

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top