IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI S.A.No.632 of 2025

1. M/s. Auto Fabs Private Limited Represented by its Director G. Kalyanaraman No.12, 8th Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086

2. G. Kalyanaraman ...Appellants Vs.

M/s. Krishna Fabrications Private Limited Represented by its Directors

1. Arun Choudhari

2. Akash Choudhari Registered office at

6-A, Phase-1, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore 560 058 ... Respondent Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 to set aside the decree and judgment dated 24.01.2025 made in A.S. No.37 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the decree and judgment dated 02.08.2023 in I.A. No.4 of 2023 in O.S.

No.124 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

For Appellants : Mr. P. Elayaraj Kumar for Mr. R. Gowthaman For Respondent : Mr. K. Harishankar

JUDGMENT

The appellants herein, as plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.

No.124/2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Chengalpattu against the respondent/1^st defendant and two others (M/s. Jones Foundations Private Limited, the 2^nd defendant and the Sub Registrar, Guduvancherry, the 3^rd defendant) for the following reliefs:

i. Declaration to declare the sale deed dated 12.07.2021, executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant and the same was registered as document No.8589/2021 before the third respondent in the suit schedule mentioned property at SRO, Guduvancherry as null and void.

ii. To grant permanent injunction restraining the second defendant, their men, servants, agents or anybody else claiming through, or under their in any manner from alienating or encumbering the schedule mentioned suit property to the third party.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in O.S. No.124 of 2022.

3. Pending suit, the 1^st defendant/respondent filed an application in I.A. No.4/2023 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint and in the above application, the plaintiffs/appellants have filed their counter and after contest, the said application was allowed by the trial court and the plaint was rejected. Assailing the said order, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an appeal in A.S. No.37/2023, which was dismissed by the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu on 24.01.2025. Being aggrieved against the decree judgment made in A.S. No.37/2023, the plaintiffs/

appellants have filed the present second appeal.

4. Mr. K. Harishankar, learned counsel took notice for the respondent. By consent, the above second appeal is taken up for final hearing.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that none of the documents filed on the side of the plaintiffs were considered by the courts below. The plaint document No.3 dated 20.05.1991 (form No.B2) reveals that the 2^nd appellant is one of the director of the 1^st appellant company. Further it is submitted that as per order dated 12.02.1996 made in C.P. No. 57 of 1995, the 1^st appellant company was not in amalgamation with the respondent. But, the lower appellate court wrongly concluded that the 1^st appellant company was in amalgamation with the respondent. The appellants have challenged the sale deed dated 12.07.2021 executed by the respondent in favour of M/s.Jones Foundations/2^nd defendant which was registered as document No.8589 of 2021 at SRO, Guduvancherry, and only a civil court can entertain such suits allowing the parties to let in evidence, to substantiate that the above sale deed was executed by the respondent without parent documents which is in the hands of the appellants. His further contention is that, under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree is three years and the time begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiffs/appellants to have the instrument or decree cancelled and set aside or contract resc