CRP(PD).No.3343 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.10.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRP(PD).No.3343 of 2022

and CMP.No.17721 of 2022

1. M.Bhuvaneshwari

2.

K.Mohan

...Petitioners

Vs.

1. S.Lakshmi

2. Minor S.Karthikeyan

S/o. Late Mr.Singravelan

Rep by his natural guardian and

Mother S.Lakshmi

3. The Sub Registrar

Sub Registration Office,

Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.

4. The Assistant Engineer

Electricity Board, Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053.

...Respondents

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 06.08.2022 by the

District Munsif at Ambattur in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.133 of 2020.

1/6

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

CRP(PD).No.3343 of 2022

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Kather Hussain

For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Ramesh

For R3 : Mr.V.Jeevagiridaran

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated

06.08.2022 passed by the District Munsif, Ambattur in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in

O.S.No.133 of 2020.

2. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit

in O.S.No.133 of 2020 for the relief of declaring the settlement deed executed by

Mrs.Vijaya, the 1^st plaintiff's mother-in-law in favour of the 1^st defendant as null

and void. After receipt of notice, the defendants 1 and 2/revision petitioners have

filed an application before the trial Court under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC., to

reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs are not entitled to dispute the

settlement deed executed by Mrs.Vijaya, the 1^st plaintiff's mother-in-law in favour

of the 1^st defendant since because the property is belongs to her mother. Hence,

the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the property as well as the cancellation of

2/6

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

CRP(PD).No.3343 of 2022

the settlement deed which is not maintainable.

3. The said application was strongly objected by the plaintiff stating that

the first plaintiff nor the defendants 1 and 2/revision petitioners directed any

amount to purchase the property. It is a self acquired property of the plaintiff's

husband and her father-in-law, so the plaintiffs have right over the suit property.

However, the 1^st defendant mother executed the settlement deed in faovur of her

daughter in the year 2009 as such is not permissible.

4. On hearing both sides, the trial Court had dismissed the said application

on the ground that the issue of limitation can be decided only based on the oral

and documentary evidence let in trial and the defendants 1 and 2 have not let in

anyone specific oral or documentary evidence.

5. Challenging the same, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed this Civil

Revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the

plaintiff are not entitled to any relief and the property was belongs to the revision

petitioner's mother. He further submitted that the 1^st plaintiff is employee in Police

3/6

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

CRP(PD).No.3343 of 2022

Department, she caused interference to the revision petitioners. He further

submitted that the trial Court had dismissed the application as such is erroneous

one. Hence, he prayed to allow this petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent 1 and 2 and the learned

Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

8. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the suit was filed in the year

2020 for the relief of partition and declaring the settlement deed executed by her

mother-in-law in favour of the 1^st defendant. Therefore, the 1^st defendant is the

absolute owner of the property and Patta was also transferred in her name as on

date, the 1^st defendant is enjoyment of the pr