IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON :09.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :08.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CRP.No.422 of 2024 and CMP.No.2012 of 2024

1.Kannan

2.V.Balasubramaniam

3.Thennarasu

4.Yogalakshmi

5.Kalaivani

6.Sridevi ... Petitioners vs.

1.Santhamani

2.Poongodi

3.Saraswathy 4.Kathiresan 5.Duraisamy

6.Ramathal 7.Gowtham

8.Rathika ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 07.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.314 of 2021 in O.S.No.42 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mukunth Senior Advocate for M//s.N.Somasundaar For Respondents : Mr.K.Myilsamy J U D G M E N T The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The respondents herein filed a suit seeking declaration that sale deed with document No.1987 of 2001 registered on the file of Joint Sub Registrar, Gobichettipalayam in favour of defendants 3 to 6 by defendants 1 to 2 was null and void and for consequential declaration regarding invalidity of various documents came into existence subsequent to the first document. The respondent also sought for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties.

3. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit property was self acquired property of father of the respondents 1 and 2 and grand father of the respondents 3 to 8 namely Velusamy @ Velappan having purchased the same under sale deed dated 24.08.1970. The above said Velusamy, the respondents 1 and 2 and predecessor in interest of other respondents executed a power deed on 04.03.1996 in respect of the suit property in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Subsequently, the Velusamy died on 16.01.2001 leaving behind the respondents herein as his legal representatives. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 executed impugned sale deed in favour of defendants 3 to 6 on 03.12.2001 in their capacity as power agent of Velusamy and respondents. Thereafter, various sale transaction had taken place among the other defendants and on 10.08.2019, the defendants 1 to 6 came to suit property to measure the same, then only plaintiff had taken encumbrance certificate and acquired knowledge about the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendants 3 and 6 and the other subsequent documents. Hence, the suit was laid for the above said relief.

4. The petitioners/defendants 7 to 12 filed an application to reject the plaint on the ground that the first prayer in the suit, challenging the sale deed dated 03.12.2001 is barred by limitation and as a consequence other suit prayers are also not maintainable. It is further stated that as per the plaint averment, there is no cause of action for challenging the impugned sale deed and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (d) of CPC. The trial Court not satisfied with the grounds urged before it and dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first prayer in the plaint, challenging the sale deed dated 03.12.2001 is hopelessly barred by limitation as the suit had been filed nearly after 19 years. It is submitted by him that the petitioners were party to the sale deed dated 03.12.2001 as they are represented by the power agent and hence they cannot plead ignorance of the sale deed and challenge the same after 19 years. It is further stated that if the first prayer in the plaint is rejected, automatically the other prayers seeking invalidity of consequential sale deeds executed by the defendants would also become not maintainable.

6. The learned counsel also submitted that the averment in the plaint, as if the plaintiffs acquired knowledge about th