Madras High Court
G.Sunitha vs Ashoknandavanam Properties on 2 December, 2021
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
CRP.(PD).No.491/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CRP.(PD).No.491/2019 and CMP.No.3238/2019
[Video Conferencing]
1.G.Sunitha
2.B.Srujana .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.AshokNandavanam Properties
Private Limited, rep. by
its Director Mr.A.SivaSankar,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 102.
2.Kranti Kumar
3.Gopal Krishnamurthy
4.The Chief Manager,
Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch,
Chennai – 600 004. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to allow the above Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Fair
and final Order of the District Court No.II, Kancheepuram dated
06.03.2018 and made in I.A.No.504/2017 in O.S.No.25/2017.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Gowthaman
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
for K.Bala
ORDER
(1) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06.03.2018 passed in I.A.No.504/2017 in O.S.No.25/2017 by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 CRP.(PD).No.491/2019 District Court No.II, Kancheepuram.
(2) The petitioners herein are defendants 2 and 3 in the Suit in O.S.No.25/2017. The Suit in O.S.No.25/2017 is filed by the 1st respondent herein for specific performance of an oral Agreement of Sale and to direct the defendants 1, 3 and 4 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Suit property. There is also an alternative prayer for return of money which was stated to be paid by the plaintiff.
(3) The case of plaintiff is that the 1st defendant along with his daughters agreed to sell the property in respect of the Suit lands. It is the specific case of plaintiff that on 21.12.2016, the 1st defendant had offered to sell the Suit land to the plaintiff for the price agreed. (4) It is stated that the entire sale consideration was paid as directed by the 1st defendant in the Suit in the Savings Bank Account in Canara Bank which was kept in the name of Hindu Undivided Family of 1st defendant. Pending Suit the revision petitioners who are defendants 3 and 4 in the Suit filed an application in I.A.No.504/2017 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) and Section 151 CPC for rejection of Plaint. In the affidavit, the revision petitioners stated that the Suit for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 CRP.(PD).No.491/2019 specific performance is absolutely barred by law. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed the Suit on the basis, that the 1 st defendant is the true owner but the property stands in the name of revision petitioners.
(5) It is stated that the plea in the Plaint is directly hit by Section 3 of Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988. It is further stated that they did not receive any consideration. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the Court cannot decide contentious issues in the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Aggrieved by the same, defendants have come by view of Civil Revision Petition. From the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 (d) and Section 151 CPC, this Court is unable to see any ground by which the plaint can be rejected on the ground that it is barred by any law. From the plaint averments, this Court is unable to throw this Suit on the ground that it is barred by law. The Trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff relied upon the oral agreement with the 1st defendant who is the father. The question whether the father has entered into any oral agreement or received the sale consideration from the plaintiff https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 CRP.(PD).No.491/2019 is a matter for evidence.
(6) Assuming that defendants/revision petitioners are the owners of the property, it cannot be said that the plaintiff cannot get any relief in the Suit. If the plaintiff is able to prove that the 1st defendant received sale consideration on the basis of oral agreement, he is bound to return the money. This Court cannot reject the plaint on the basis of averments made in the written statement. Based on the facts and materials that are supplied by the revision petitioners in support of their application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) and Section 151 CPC, the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) can not be rejected. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition. The order of Lower Court is perfectly in order and cannot be interfered with for the reasons above stated.
(7) As a result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.12.2021 cda Internet : Yes To The District Court No.II, Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 CRP.(PD).No.491/2019 S.S.SUNDAR, J., cda CRP.(PD).No.491/2019 02.12.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5