C.R.P.(MD) No.866 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 24.11.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

C.R.P.(MD) No.866 of 2020

and

C.M.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2020

1.Pushpa Leela

2.Rajappa

3.Rajasekaran

... Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 3

vs.

Louis Raja

... Respondent/Plaintiff

PRAYER:- This Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.99 of 2020 on

the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.

For Petitioners

: Mr.N.S.Ponnaiah

For Respondent

: Mr.V.Ganapathy Subramanian

ORDER

The defendants 1 to 3 in the suit in O.S.No.99 of 2020 on the

file of the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, have filed

this Civil Revision Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off

the plaint.

2.The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.99 of

2020 for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from

demolishing the wall in the suit property. It appears that one

Francis Xavier has also filed a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2017 on the

file of the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, for

partition and separate possession of his 1/7^th share to the

plaintiff, to declare that the settlement deed executed by the 1^st

defendant in favour of the 7^th defendant on the file of the Madurai

Joint Registrar-I dated 17.11.2015 is null and void, to declare

that the sale deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the

8^th defendant dated 09.05.2016 before the very same Madurai Joint

Registrar-I is null and void and for permanent injunction

restraining the defendants from further alienating the property.

The 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2017 are the

plaintiff and the 1^st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.99 of 2020.

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.P.(MD) No.866 of 2020

3.The basis on which the plaintiff would claim a right on the

property was that the plaintiff's father and mother, who were

working as Teachers, had purchased the suit schedule properties in

the name of their father, Valai Thevar. The plaintiff and the

defendants 1 to 5 are siblings. Till the demise of the father, he

was maintaining the suit schedule properties. The said Valai

Thevar died on 31.12.2008 intestate and the revenue records

thereafter were mutated in the name of the plaintiff and the

defendants 1 to 5 and their mother, the 6^th defendant. She had also

passed away on 03.12.2016 and thereafter, the property devolved

only on the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5. The 1^st defendant

with an intention to cheat the others created a settlement deed in

favour of his wife in respect of the 1^st item of the suit schedule

property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to

5 had created various documents to deprive him of his share and

consequently, he was constrained to file the suit in question.

4.During the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.11 of 2017, the 1^st

defendant, namely, Louis Raja, has filed a suit in O.S.No.99 of

2020, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, for

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

The defendants have come forward with this revision petition to

strike off the plaint in O.S.No.99 of 2020. However, perusal of

the grounds of revision does not set forth any ground for striking

off the plaint. The only ground, which merits consideration is

that the respondent herein has suppressed filing of the suit in

O.S.No.11 of 2017. This is an issue, which has to be raised as a

defense and is not a ground for striking off the plaint. The

learned counsel for the petitioners have not given sufficient

reasons or grounds for striking off the plaint. The plaint makes

out a cause of action and considering the fact that while

c