Advocates:
['M/s S Akash', '', 'J RAMESH-MS', 'SAM JAYARAJ HOUSTON-MS', 'COUNTER OF R FILED D NO DT']

A.No.2469 of 2022

A.No.2469 of 2022

in

C.S.No.207 of 2021

Reserved on

25.08.2022

Pronounced on

01.11.2022

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

This present application is filed by the applicant, praying to reject

the plaint under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side

Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of Civil Procdure Code.

2. The applicant herein is the 4^th defendant in the suit in

C.S.No.207 of 2021. The said suit has been filed by the 1^st

respondent/plaintiff, namely, Ms. P.S.Usha, daughter of one Thiru

Ambigainathan, for partition of the suit schedule properties into 4 equal

shares and to allot 1/4^th share to the 1^st respondent/plaintiff and for

permanent injunction restraining all the respondents/defendant-brothers

and brothers’ son from dispossessing her from the suit schedule property.

Further the 1^st respondent/plaintiff, also prays to declare the settlement

deed dated 27/02/2020 executed by his brother/1^st defendant in favour of

her brother’s son i.e. Applicant/4^th defendant herein as null and void.

3. According to the applicant, the suit schedule properties were

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

A.No.2469 of 2022

originally purchased by Mrs. Dhanammal i.e. foster grandmother of his

father Late Mr.P.S.Surendra, 1^st defendent in the suit, vide two registered

sale deeds dated 19/10/1941 and 21/10/1943 registered as document no.

2122 of 1941 and 105 of 1943 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, T-

Nagar. During her life time, the said Dhanammal had executed a

settlement deed dated 9/12/1957 registered as doc No. 1323 of 1957

creating a life interest in favour of the applicant's grandfather, Late

Mr.Ambigaithan as 1st beneficiary, who is none other than the foster son

of the said Dhanammal and Late. P. Subramanya Udayar and conveyed

the entire property in favour of his father, Mr. P.S.Surendra, the grandson

of the said Dhanammal, as the 2nd and ultimate beneficiary which shall

take effect after the lifetime of his grandfather Mr. Ambigainathan.

Subsequent to the death of the applicant's grandfather on 7/11/1996, his

father became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and

later, he had mutated the revenue records in his name.

4. According to the applicant/4^th

defendant, the 1^st

respondent/plaintiff and other respondents were well aware of the

existence of the Settlement deed in favour of his grandfather and his

father. During the lifetime of his grandfather, the respondents herein had

never raised any dispute regarding the validity of the settlement deed.

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

A.No.2469 of 2022

While so, it is stated that the applicant's grandmother Ms.P.S.Sushila,

wife of Ambigainathan (1st beneficiary) who is the mother of his father

and other 3 respondents herein, vide letter dated 22.11.2001 had given

their free consent to sell the suit schedule property while acknowledging

his father as the absolute owner of the said suit properties. The said

letter, dated 22.11.2001, is extracted herein below:

“We have no objection for Mr. P.S.Surendra, son of

the first of us and brother of the rest of us to sell the

vacant land in extent 3.2 grounds, appurtenant to the

building on the Eastern side, situate at Old No.41,New

No.94, Bazullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017 to

M/s. Malles Constructions, represented by Mrs.

U.Nagamaleshwari, Proprietrix, having its office at

No.1, Periyar Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017, since

the said property belongs to Mr. P.S.Surendra

absolutely.

5. According to the applicant, the 1^st respondent/plaintiff herein

has filed the present suit suppressing the above letter duly signed by all

the respondents herein. Further the letter finds place nowhere in the plaint

or in the amended plaint filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff subsequent to

the death of his father, 1^st defendant. Thus, it is evident that the plaintiff

herein d