CRP.No.1869 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

Civil Revision Petition [PD] No.1869 of 2015

& M.P.No.1 of 2015

1. S.A.Raman

2. Shanmughavadivu Raman

... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. K.Devaraj

2. K.Elumalai

3. K.Dhakshinamoorthi

4. Padmavathy

5. K.Adhilakshmi

6. K.Ramadoss

7. Dhanammal

8. K.Vijayakumar Reddy

9. Kalpana Chittarajan

10. Vasanthi Ezhilmani

11. Vijayakumari

12. Chandramohan

13. Johnson

14. G.Nesamani

15. Sagaya Doss

16. Sathish

17. Vasuki

18. J.Sathishkumar

... Respondents

1/6

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

CRP.No.1869 of 2015

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India for striking of the plaint on the ground of abuse of

process of Court in O.S.No.474 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif at

Chengalpet.

For petitioners

: Ms.V.J.Latha

For Respondents

: No appearance

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike of the plaint filed

in O.S.No.474 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif at Chengalpet.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.474 of 2014 for

declaration that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit property along with

the first defendant, to declare that the power of attorney executed by the first

defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void and to declare

that the subsequent sale deeds executed in favour of the respondents 2 to 13

and the settlement deed executed by the 7^th defendant in favour of the 14^th

defendant as null and void and for consequential injunction restraining the

defendants from alienating the suit property and for costs.

2/6

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

CRP.No.1869 of 2015

3. Though sufficient opportunity has been given to the respondents

they never appeared before this Court. Hence, this Court has no other

option except to pass an Order with the available records.

4. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that suit has been filed stating that the property has been

purchased by their father in the name of his wife, Dhanammal as a benami.

The suit has been filed after 23 years without any cause of action and

therefore such filing of the above suit is clearly barred by limitation.

5. A perusal of the records shows that the Respondents 1 to 6 herein

claiming as co-owners, have filed the suit in O.S.No.474 of 2014. The

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per section 4 of

the Benami Transactions [Prohibition] Act, 1998, no suit will lie on the

ground of Benami. Moreover, the suit has been filed after 14 years of

execution of the sale deeds and after 23 years of expiry of their father

Kuppan, who is said to have purchased the property in the name of his wife.

3/6

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

CRP.No.1869 of 2015

6. Inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the respondents, none

appeared for the respondents. The sale deed executed by the said

Dhanammal was acted upon and various developments have taken place.

Further, the sale deed stands in the name of Danammal and she has

authorized and executed Power of attorney to sell the property in the year

1999. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners holds much force, as a reason to be considered for

allowing of this application. Hence, the present suit to declare the

subsequent sales and settlement as null and void is hopelessly barred by

limitation and the plaint has to be struck of.

7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the plaint

in O.S.No.474 of 2014 is struck of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed. No costs.

29.03.2022

vrc

4/6

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

CRP.No.1869 of 2015

Index:yes/no

Internet:yes

To

The District Munsif, Chengalpet.

5/6

htt