C.R.P.No.1624 of 2020

and C.M.P.No.9843 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.10.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

C.R.P.No.1624 of 2020

and

C.M.P.No.9843 of 2020

1.Sara Begam

2.Jerina Begum

3.Sabeena

4.Minor. Rahana

5.Minor. Sahaha

... Petitioners

(Minors rep. by the mother and next friend Sabeena)

Vs.

1.Thangarasu

2.Sarojini

3.Thangalakshmi

4.Mahadevan

5.Jothimalar

6.The Inspector General of Registration,

Head Office Vanchiyoor,

Trivandaram, Kerala - 695 035.

7.The District Registrar, Registration Office, Thodupula,

Idukki District, Kerala - 685 508.

Page 1 of 12

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

C.R.P.No.1624 of 2020

and C.M.P.No.9843 of 2020

8.The Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Kattapana,

Idukki District, Kerala - 685 508.

9.The Inspector General of Registration, Head Office,

100 Santhome High Road, Chennai - 4.

10.The District Registrar, Registration Office, Ariyalur,

Ariyalur District.

11.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Perambalur,

Perambalur Taluk and District.

... Respondents

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 16.12.2019

passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.235 of 2018 on the file of the Sub

Court, Perambalur.

For Petitioners

: Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan

For R1 to R5

: Mr.N.Subramanian

For R9 to R11

: Dr.S.Suriya, AGP

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and

decretal orders dated 16.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in

O.S.No.235 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Perambalur.

Page 2 of 12

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

C.R.P.No.1624 of 2020

and C.M.P.No.9843 of 2020

2.The revision petitioners are the defendants 7 to 11 in

O.S.No.235 of 2018 on the file of Sub Court, Peramabalur. The

respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for cancelling two sale deeds

registered by the third defendant, Sub Registrar, Kattappana, in

document nos.104/1996 & 105/1996 dated 08.01.1996 and also for a

direction to the defendants to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the

plaintiffs by way of damages for the mental agony undergone by them.

The defendants 1 to 6 are government officials. Admittedly, the suit was

filed without issuing notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

3. The defendants 7 to 11 are private parties and they filed an

application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in I.A.No.1

of 2019 on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the

government is not maintainable since Section 80 CPC notice has not

been issued to them. It is also contended by them that the petition to

dispense with such a notice under Section 80 (2) CPC was also not

allowed by the Court and hence, the suit in O.S.No.235 of 2018 should

Page 3 of 12

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

C.R.P.No.1624 of 2020

and C.M.P.No.9843 of 2020

be rejected.

4.The respondents/plaintiffs filed their counter and after full

contest, the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, dismissed the

petition vide her orders dated 16.12.2019 by observing thus :

"10.It is argued that the respondents have already given

suit notice to the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant prior to

filing of this suit and same has been marked Ex.R9. Ex.R9

reveals that the suit notice to the Inspector General of

Registration, Thrivandraum and the Sub Registrar

Kattapana of Kerala State has been duly issued by all

these respondents on 22.02.2018 itself about the

institution of the case. Only after that notice, this suit has

been filed in this Court on 23.08.2019. Though Ex.R9

notice has been issued only against 1st and 3rd

defendants and not to other defendants, the actual active

defendants who have allegedly refused for the

cancellation of document are the 1st and 3rd defendants.

So it is pr