Madras High Court
N.S.Nedunchezhian vs Saraswathi on 15 July, 2021
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 02.07.2021
Pronounced on : 15.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
and CMP.No.19364 of 2018
N.S.Nedunchezhian ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Saraswathi
2.Madhi @ Gejavardhan
3.Anbukkarasai
4.Sundhararasu
5.Latchumanan
6.Annapoorani
7.Sathiya
8.Thirumurugan
9.Ramesh ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 05.09.2017
made in IA.No.200 of 2016 in OS.No.138 of 2015 on the file of the
Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Manoharan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.P.Jotheeswaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gandhiraj
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
ORDER
This civil revision petition is directed as against the order and decree dated 05.09.2017 passed in IA.No.200 of 2016 in OS.No.138 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry, thereby dismissed the petition for rejection of plaint.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents filed suit to cancel the sale deed dated 05.07.2004 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. While pending suit, the petitioner filed petition for rejection of plaint and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
3. Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit is clearly barred by limitation and there is absolutely no cause of action to file the impugned suit. All the respondents herein jointly executed the sale deed dated 05.07.2004 in favour of the petitioner herein. If at all the respondents wanted to challenge the sale deed, they 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 would have filed the suit within a period of three years as contemplated under Article 59 of Limitation Act. Accordingly, they ought to have filed the suit on or before 04.07.2007 itself. Whereas, the present suit was laid by the respondents only on 30.09.2015 after period of ten years. Therefore, it is clearly barred by limitation and the plaint is liable to be rejected. According to the respondents, the petitioner promised to reconvey the property after settling the entire amount. After settling the amount in execution proceedings in EP.No.191 of 2001 and the same was terminated on 02.07.2014., they filed the present suit in the year 2015. In fact, the petitioner filed suit in OS.No.197 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif at Puducherry for bare injunction in respect of the suit property, wherein the second respondent herein as the defendant in the said suit, has filed his written statement, in which no whisper about the allegation made in the present suit about the sale deed by them. Further filing of the said suit is no nexus for the cause of action to file the present suit. When the petitioner filed suit for bare injunction in respect of very same property, the respondents are very much available in the said suit and they would have made counter claim in the said suit itself. Therefore, the present suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Therefore, the respondents 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 had lost their opportunity to challenge the sale deed in any manner and on any ground after period of three years from the date of the sale deed.
3.1 He further submitted that insofar as the cause of action is concerned, the second respondent met the petitioner and insisted him to reconvey the suit property to him in the month of May 2014. In fact, on 21.06.2014, the second respondent had sent 10 rowdy elements to the suit property and attempted to measure and divide the same into residential plots. However, the petitioner successfully prevented them in doing so and he was constrained to file the suit for bare injunction in OS.No.197 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry against the second respondent herein. The said suit was filed only on the strength of the sale deed executed by the respondents on 05.07.2004. Even then, the respondents failed to counter claim in the said suit to cancel the sale deed dated 05.07.2004. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Ramti Devi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 198
(ii) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 reported in (2017) 13 SCC 174
(iii) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) & others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366
(iv) Punjab National Bank Vs. J.Samsath Beevi & Others reported in (2010) 3 CTC 310
(v) M/s.Cambridge Solutions Ltd. Vs. Global Softward Ltd reported in (2016) 5 LW 45
(vi) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath & Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1
(vii) Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114
4. Per contra, Mr.A.Gandhiraj, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit was filed on the basis of the cause of actions that arose on 24.02.1995 when the plaintiffs have obtained a loan from the defendant by executing a mortgage dated in the year 1998; when the defendant therein has filed OS.No.231 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, at Puducherry for preliminary decree for sale; on 26.02.1999 when the preliminary decree was passed; on 10.04.2000 when 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 the final decree was passed; on 05.07.2004 when the sale deed was executed; on 16.07.2004 when E.P.No.191 of 2001 was terminated; on 02.07.2014 when the OS.No.197 of 2015 was filed on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry; in the month of February 2015 when the plaintiffs have received summons in the said suit.
4.1 He further submitted that the alleged sale was conveyed one and after full satisfaction of the decree amount, the petitioner agreed to reconvey the property. In fact, after settling the entire amount, EP.No.191 of 2001 was terminated by the execution court. That apart, the respondents 1,2,4 and 5 are only the judgment debtors in OS.No.231 of 1998 and whereas in the present civil revision petition, other respondents are also party in the suit. While terminating the execution petition, no cash payment was made to the decree holder before the execution court. Only on the endorsement made by the petitioner, by full satisfaction, the sale deed was executed on 05.07.2004. Though the sale deed was executed on 05.07.2004, it was not at all acted upon at any point of time by the petitioner herein. No sale consideration was paid by the petitioner during the execution of the sale deed on 05.07.2004. After execution petition was 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 terminated, only at the instance of the petitioner herein for the reason, after negotiation the respondents agreed to sell their suit property with the pre-condition that the decree holder would reconvey the property to the respondents herein. Therefore, the suit is very much maintainable and not barred by any law. He further submitted that the petitioner is prohibited by law of promissory estoppel under Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act to refuse to reconvey the suit property. In fact, the respondents 3, 6 to 9 herein who are co-owners of the suit property and agreed to satisfy the debt only to save the family honour and avoid court auction sale. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Chhotanben and another Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and ors reported in 2018(4) CTC 206
(ii) Urvashiben and another Vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi reported in (2019) 13 SCC 372
(iii) Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen and others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 644
(iv) John Kennedy and another Vs. Ranjana and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 785 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
(v) Loom Tex Exports vs. Thanneer Panthal Dharma Chathiram rep. by Executive Officer reported in 2020 (1) CTC 275
(vi) N.Mohan Vs. P.Govindasami reported in 2019 (4) CTC 856
5. Heard, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.A.Gandhiraj, the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents filed suit to cancel the sale deed dated 05.07.2004 executed by them in favour of the petitioner herein and also for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The points raised by the petitioner for rejection of plaint are as follows:
(i) The suit is barred by limitation
(ii) No cause of action for filing the suit
7. The suit is filed on 30.09.2015 challenging the sale deed dated 05.07.2004. Admittedly, the respondents executed sale deed in favour of 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 the petitioner herein on 05.07.2004 registered vide document No.2186 of 2004. On perusal of the sale deed dated 05.07.2004, revealed that on the date of execution of the sale deed all original parent deeds and possession of the property were handed over to the petitioner herein. While being so, the respondents filed suit after period of 11 years from the date of the sale deed alleging that after payment of the entire amount on the mortgage, petitioner agreed to reconvey the property. Even after settlement of the entire amount in the execution petition in EP.No.191 of 2001 and after endorsement made by the petitioner as full satisfaction and after termination of the execution petition on 02.07.2014, the present suit has been laid challenging the sale deed executed by them. On perusal of the plaint, except mere allegations that the petitioner agreed to reconvey the property, there is no averment made in the plaint to show about any proceedings in respect of the reconveyance.
8. Though, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that there was panchayat between the parties and in the said panchayat, the petitioner agreed to reconvey the property after settlement of the entire amount, there is no whisper about the panchayat held 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 between the parties in the plaint averments. In order to substantiate the said panchayat, the plaintiffs also failed to produce any piece of evidence along with the plaint. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, to challenge the sale deed executed on 05.07.2004, the respondents ought to have filed the suit within a period of three years as per Article 59 of Limitation Act. Article 59 of Limitation Act is extracted hereunder:
Description of Suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run
59.To cancel or set aside Three years When the facts entitling the an instrument or decree plaintiff to have the or for the rescission of a instrument or decree contract cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him
9. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed by all the respondents on 05.07.2004 in favour of the petitioner and the same was challenged by the present impugned suit after period of eleven years. Therefore, the respondents lost their right to challenge the sale deed dated 05.07.2004 in any manner and on any ground, since the sale deed become final and binding on the respondents herein. Therefore, they are barred and estopped from claiming anything contrary to the recitals contained in the 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 registered sale deed dated 05.07.2004. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Ramti Devi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 198, wherein it is held as follows:
2.The question is whether the suit is within limitation.
In the evidence, it was admitted that she had knowledge of the execution and registration of the sale deed on 29-1-1947. Initially a suit was filed in 1959 but was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit. Admittedly, the present suit was filed on 30-7-1966. The question, therefore, is whether the suit is within limitation. Article 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, relied on by the appellant herself, postulates that to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract, the limitation is three years and it begins to run when the plaintiff entitles to have the instrument or the decree cancelled or set aside or when the contract rescinded first became known to him. As seen, when the appellant had knowledge of it on 29-1-1949 itself the limitation began to run from that date and the three years' limitation has hopelessly been barred on the date when the suit was filed. It is contended by Shri VM. Tarkunde, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, that the counsel in the trial court was not right in relying upon Article 59. Article 113 is the relevant article. The limitation does not begin to run as the sale deed document is void as it was executed to stifle the prosecution. Since the appellant having been remained in possession, the only 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 declaration that could be sought and obtained is that she is the owner and that the document does not bind the appellant. We are afraid that we cannot agree with the learned counsel. As seen, the recitals of the documents would show that the sale deed was executed for valuable consideration to discharge pre-existing debts and it is a registered document. Apart from the prohibition under Section 92 of the Evidence Act to adduce oral evidence to contradict the terms of the recital therein, no issue in this behalf on the voidity of the sale deed or its binding nature was raised nor a finding recorded that the sale deed is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Pleading itself is not sufficient. Since the appellant is seeking to have the document avoided or cancelled, necessarily, a declaration has to be given by the court in that behalf. Until the document is avoided or cancelled by proper declaration, the duly registered document remains valid and binds the parties. So the suit necessarily has to be laid within three years from the date when the cause of action had occurred. Since the cause of action had arisen on 29-1- 1947, the date on which the sale deed was executed and registered and the suit was filed on 30-7-1966, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The courts below, therefore, were right in dismissing the suit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
10. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal reported in (2017) 13 SCC 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 174, wherein it is held as follows:
7.The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint.
Even when, the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the Article 59 of the Limitation Act postulates that to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract, the limitation is three years and it begins to run when the plaintiff entitles to have the instrument or the decree cancelled or set aside or when the contract rescinded first became known to him The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
11. In the case on hand, the sale deed was executed on 05.07.2004 and the present impugned suit was laid only on 30.09.2015. Therefore, the above judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand and the present suit is clearly barred by law and the plaint is liable to be rejected. That apart, in the present suit, the respondents cleverly drafted the plaint that too, to cancel the sale deed dated 05.07.2004 instead of declaring that the sale deed is null and void. If clever drafting of the plaint has created illusion of a cause of action, the court should nip in 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 the bud at the earlier stage so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. As pointed out above, though the suit is filed to cancel the sale deed or declaration, the Article 59 of Limitation Act will apply. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
12. Insofar as cause of action is concerned, the respondents filed the present suit with the cause of action, which reads as follows:
The cause of action arose on 24.02.1995 when the plaintiffs have obtained loan from the defendant by executing a mortgage dated, in the year 1998 when the defendant herein has filed OS.No.231 of 1998 for preliminary decree for sale, on 26.02.1999 when the preliminary decree was passed, on 10.04.2000 when the final decree was passed on 05.07.2004 when the sale deed was executed, on 16.07.2004 when the E.P.No.191 of 2001 was terminated, on 02.07.2014 when the OS.No.197 of 2015 was filed on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry, in the month of February, 2015 when the plaintiffs have received summons in the said suit OS.No.197/2015 and subsequently, the cause of action arose at Villianur, Pondicherry where the parties are residing and the suit properties are situated over which this Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
13. According to the respondents, on 24.02.1995, they borrowed loan from the petitioner by executing the mortgage deed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed suit on mortgage in OS.No.231 of 1998 and the same was decreed on 26.02.1999 and final decree was passed on 10.04.2000. To avoid the court auction, the respondents executed sale deed on 05.07.2004. In fact, the petitioner filed execution petition in EP.No.191 of 2001 in respect of other property. After recording full satisfaction, it was terminated on 02.07.2014. The petitioner also filed suit in OS.No.197 of 2015 for bare injunction in respect of very same property as against the second respondent herein. The second respondent also filed his written statement and contested the suit. The respondents could have very well filed counter claim to set aside the sale deed executed by them. Admittedly, they failed to file any counter claim in the injunction suit and filed present suit, that too, to cancel the sale deed executed on 05.07.2004 in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore, there is absolutely no cause of action to file the present suit to challenge the sale deed which was executed on 05.07.2004. Though the respondents averred in their plaint that the petitioner undertakes to reconvey the property and thereafter failed to reconvey the same, there is no iota of evidence to show that the 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 petitioner agreed to reconvey the suit property and also there is no condition in the sale deed to reconvey the suit property. The sale deed dated 05.07.2004 also revealed that on the date of sale deed, possession was handed over to the petitioner and the respondents herein duly executed sale deed with their conscience. Therefore, the respondents have lost their right to sue to challenge the sale deed executed by themselves on 05.07.2004.
14. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) & others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, wherein it is held as follows:
24.2.In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.9 this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words : -
“5. …The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful – not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing …” (emphasis supplied) 24.3.Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,10 this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.
24.4.If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal11 held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
29.1.On a reading of the plaint and the documents relied upon, it is clear that the Plaintiffs have admitted the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 in favour of Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 herein. Para 5 of the plaint reads as :
“(5) …Thus, subject of the aforesaid terms the plaintiffs had executed sale deed selling the suit property to the opponent no.1 vide sale deed dated 02/07/2009 bearing Sr.No. 5158…” 29.2. The case made out in the Plaint is that even though they had executed the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,74,02,000, an amount 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 of only Rs.40,000 was paid to them. The remaining 31 cheques mentioned in the Sale Deed, which covered the balance amount of Rs.1,73,62,000 were alleged to be “bogus” or “false”, and allegedly remained unpaid. We find the averments in the Plaint completely contrary to the recitals in the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009, which was admittedly executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of Respondent No.1. In the Sale Deed, the Plaintiffs have expressly and unequivocally acknowledged that the entire sale consideration was “paid” by Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 herein to the Plaintiffs.
29.5. If the case made out in the Plaint is to be believed, it would mean that almost 99% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.1,73,62,000 allegedly remained unpaid throughout. It is, however inconceivable that if the payments had remained unpaid, the Plaintiffs would have remained completely silent for a period of over 5 and ½ years, without even issuing a legal notice for payment of the unpaid sale consideration, or instituting any proceeding for recovery of the amount, till the filing of the present suit in December 2014.
29.11. The plea taken in the plaint that they learnt of the alleged fraud in 2014, on receipt of the index of the Sale Deed, is wholly misconceived, since the receipt of the index would not constitute the cause of action for filing the suit.
29.12. On a reading of the plaint, it is clear that the cause of action arose on the non-payment of the bulk of the sale consideration, which event occurred in the year 2009. The plea 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 taken by the Plaintiffs is to create an illusory cause of action, so as to overcome the period of limitation. The plea raised is rejected as being meritless and devoid of any truth.
29.18. The delay of over 5 and ½ years after the alleged cause of action arose in 2009, shows that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was instituted on 15.12.2014, even though the alleged cause of action arose in 2009, when the last cheque was delivered to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus of proof that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The plaint is therefore, liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC.
29.19. Reliance is placed on the recent judgment of this Court rendered in Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs.15 wherein this Court held the suit would be barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, if it was filed beyond three years of the execution of the registered deed.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusion of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint. If created any illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage.
20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
15. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the sale deed which was executed by the respondents on 05.07.2004 was challenged in the year 2015, that too for the cause of action in respect of execution petition filed by the petitioner and termination of the execution petition and also filing of the injunction suit by the petitioner. Therefore, the above judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are squarely applicable to the case on hand and there is no cause of action to file the present suit. Admittedly, the petitioner filed suit in OS.No.231 of 1998 on the mortgage and the same was decreed on 26.02.1999. On 05.07.2004, the respondents themselves executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein in order to avoid the auction sale. In fact, the petitioner also filed suit in OS.No.197 of 2015 for injunction in respect of very same property as against the second respondent herein. The second respondent filed his written statement and there was no whisper about reconveyance of the suit property by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the cause of action drafted by the respondents creates illusion of a cause of action and it should be nipped in the bud. Hence, the present impugned suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless and it is liable to be rejected. As 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018 such, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not helpful to the case on hand, and those judgments are arising in different sets of facts and circumstances and those are not applicable to the case on hand.
16. In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order and decree dated 05.09.2017 made in IA.No.200 of 2016 in OS.No.138 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry is set aside. Accordingly, the plaint in OS.No.138 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry is hereby rejected. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
15.07.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
22/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Puducherry.
23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
CRP.PD.No.3456 of 2018
15.07.2021
24/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/