C.R.P.No.4241 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.4241 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.22232 of 2022

V.Karthikhaa Sri

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Padmanabhan

2.Manoharan

3.Rama

4.T.Gopal

5.K.Sathish Kumar

... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, to set aside the order and decretal order made in I.A.No.521 of 2020 in

O.S.No.287 of 2019 dated 28.10.2022 on the file of the Principal District

Munsif at Poonamallee and thereby allow the Revision and dismiss the suit in

O.S.No.287 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at

Poonamallee.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Thiagarajan

Page 1 of 5

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

C.R.P.No.4241 of 2022

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and

decreetal order dated 28.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.521 of 2022 in

O.S.No.287 of 2019.

2. The revision petitioner is the 5^th defendant in the Suit instituted by

the 1^st respondent for declaration. The relief sought for in the Suit is to

declare the settlement deed dated 25.01.2007 executed by the 1^st defendant in

favour of the 2^nd defendant as null and void. Power of attorney deed dated

24.05.2007 executed by the 2^nd defendant in favour of the 3^rd defendant is null

and void. Sale Deed dated 30.03.2012 executed by the 3^rd defendant in favour

of 4^th defendant as null and void and the Sale Deed dated 14.05.2014

executed by the 4^th defendant in favour of the 5^th defendant as null and void.

3. The plaintiff and the 1^st defendant are brothers. The Suit property

originally was possessed by the plaintiff’s father Krishnasamy through

partition deed dated 27.01.1978. After the demise of the said Krishnasamy,

the Suit Property was inherited by the plaintiff’s mother Smt.Sulochana and

two sons Padmanaban and Manoharan. The plaintiff claimed that his mother

Page 2 of 5

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

C.R.P.No.4241 of 2022

Smt.Sulochana executed Settlement Deed dated 04.07.2013 in favour of the

plaintiff. Based on the Settlement Deed, the 2^nd defendant has sold the Suit

Property to the 4^th defendant through power agent. The 4^th defendant in turn

further sold the property to the 5^th defendant by Sale Deed dated 14.05.2014.

The plaintiff came to know about the impugned deeds only after 23.07.2018

and he made a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Vellavedu on

20.08.2018. The copy of the complaint filed before the Inspector of Police,

Vellavedu and Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, were annexed along with

the plaint filed by the plaintiff.

4. The revision petitioner filed Interlocutory Application under Order

VII Rule 11 mainly raising the ground of limitation. When several documents

were registered and when the plaintiff states that the property belongs to his

father, he has got a right over the property as a legal heir and documents were

executed behind his back and filed a Police complaint in the year 2018 after

knowing about these documents, instituted a Suit for declaration. Thus, it is

mixed question of law and facts, which is to be tried with reference to the

documents and evidences made available on record. Though, the disputed

facts cannot be decided in Interlocutory Application filed under Order VII

Page 3 of 5

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

C.R.P.No.4241 of 2022

Rule 11. Prima facie, if the Suit is barred by limitation, then alone the power

needs to be invoked under Order VII Rule 11 but not otherwise.

5. When several factors are raised in the plaint and the plaint as a

whole is to be read for the purpose of considering the cause of action in the

Suit. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the findings made

by the Trial Court, while rejecting the Interlocutory Application filed under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition devoid of merits

and stands dismisse