##PAGE1##

C.R.P.No.3533 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 06.01.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 29.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.3533 of 2024

1.K.S.Anandan

2.K.A.Ramalingam @ Ramesh ... Petitioners

vs.

1.Hemakumari

2.Krishnamoorthy

3.Lakshminarasimhan ... Respondents

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

Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order, dated

02.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.833 of 2016 in O.S.No.180 of 2016 by the

District Munsif Judge at Ponneri by allowing the above Civil Revision

Petition.

For Petitioners : Mr.E.Prabu

For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Krishnasamy

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 07:30:05 pm )

C.R.P.No.3533 of 2024

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by

the District Munsif Judge, Ponneri in I.A.No.833 of 2016 in O.S.No.180 of

2016, dated 02.04.2024 granting leave to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs

under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing a suit for

Specific Performance on same cause of action.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit seeking declaration that Sale

Deed dated 15.12.1997 executed by one Kalavathi and her children in favour

of 1^st petitioner/1^st defendant was null and void and for consequential

injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 from interfering

with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of Suit ‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedule

Properties. It was the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that father of the 1^st

respondent was tenant under above mentioned Kalavathi/mother of 3^rd

respondent herein and she was residing in Suit ‘B’ Schedule Property. After

sometime, there was misunderstanding between the 1^st respondent's father

and said Kalavathi and hence, the 1^st respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.106 of

1992 for bare injunction against the said Kalavathi and the same was

decreed. The Rent Control Eviction proceedings initiated by Kalavathi was

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 07:30:05 pm )

C.R.P.No.3533 of 2024

dismissed. Thereafter, there was a mediation between them and the said

Kalavathi executed a Consent Deed in favour of the 1^st respondent

acknowledging that she received amount from the 1^st respondent's father and

in lieu of the same, agreed to allot a portion of the Suit ‘A’ Schedule

Property in her favour at the time of selling the property. However, the said

Kalavathi without knowledge of the respondents 1 and 2 sold the properties

to the petitioners under the above mentioned Sale Deed and hence, the

present suit was laid.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 reserved their right to seek Specific

Performance of the agreement entered into between the 1^st respondent's

father and Kalavathi under Consent Deed. Hence, along with the plaint, they

also filed an application under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure seeking leave of the Court to file separate suit for Specific

Performance based on same cause of action. The said application was

allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have

come before this Court.

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 07:30:05 pm )

C.R.P.No.3533 of 2024

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend

that the respondents 1 and 2 in the present suit sought for declaration that

Sale Deed executed by Kalavathi in favour of the petitioners was null and

void and the cause of action for the said prayer was Consent Deed executed

by Kalavathi. He further submitted that cause of action for Specific

Performance is also the Consent Deed executed by said Kalavathi.

Therefore, even at the time of filing the present suit, the relief of Specific

Performance was available to the respondents 1 and 2 and they consciously

failed to seek the relief of Specific Performance and as on today, the suit for

Specific Performance is barred and without considering the limitation, the

Trial Court committed serious error in granting leave to file