Madras High Court
C.Kaliyannan vs M.Veeraraghavan on 23 June, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P. (MD) NO.39 OF 2021
and
S.A. (MD) NO.58 OF 2025
and
C.M.P. (MD) NO.1360 OF 2025
C.R.P.(MD)No.39 of 2021:
C.Kaliyannan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.M.Veeraraghavan
2.Chandra ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying to set aside the fair and
decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2010, on the file of Rent Control
Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Sivakasi 06.01.2020, confirming the Fair and
Decreetal order in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2004, on the file of the Rent Controller /
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
District Munsif Court, Sivakasi dated 26.11.2009 and allow this Civil Revision
Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kumaravel
For Respondents : Mr.M.Solaisamy
S.A.(MD)No.58 of 2025:
C.Kaliyannan ...Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Veeraraghavan
2.Chandra ...Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, praying to allow this Second Appeal by setting aside the judgment
and decree dated 27.08.2024 made in A.S.No.04 of 2022, on the file of Sub
Court, Sivakasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2021 made in
O.S.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Sivakasi.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.P.Kannan
for Mr.J.Vishnu
For Respondent No.2 : No appearance
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioner in R.C.O.P. No.6 of 2004, initiated eviction proceedings as against the respondents. The petitioner is also the defendant in O.S.No.38 of 2005, which was filed by the respondents herein. The R.C.O.P. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. As against the same, he preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court in R.C.A.No.1 of 2010. The same was also dismissed on 06.01.2020. As against the concurrent findings, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
2.Similarly, the respondents' suit in O.S.No.38 of 2005, was decreed in their favour and the trial Court granted the declaratory relief as against the appellant in this Second Appeal and the same was appealed by the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.04 of 2022 and the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment in O.S.No.38 of 2005. As against the concurrent findings held by the trial Court, the appellant herein has filed the present Second Appeal before this Court.
3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the revision petition fairly submits that whatever decision rendered in the Second Appeal would squarely be applicable to the Civil Revision Petition also. Since the subject matter of the lis is interconnected and the parties to the proceedings are one and the same, the revision petition as well as the second appeal are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as appellant and respondents.
4.It is seen from the bundle that though the Second Appeal came to be filed in January, 2025, till date, the Appeal has not been admitted. and whether the appeal deserves for preliminary admit is a question for consideration.
5.The case of the appellant in the Second Appeal is as follows:
5.1.The respondent herein are the plaintiffs and they filed a suit against the appellant herein in O.S.No.38 of 2005, on the file of District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the rights obtained by him vide sale deed No.5231 of 2001 dated 22.11.2001, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sivakasi, in favour of the second plaintiff with the same description of schedule or in the alternative to declare 4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 the aforesaid sale deed dated 22.11.2001 as null and void. The plaintiffs also prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing any encumbrance pursuant to sale deed dated 22.11.2001.
5.2.The first respondent / first plaintiff is doing transport business by way of operating mini bus. The appellant / defendant is also an operator of transport service in the name of S.S.K.Transport. During the year 2001, the first respondent purchased three mini buses from the appellant / defendant vide an agreement dated 1.3.2001 between the first respondent and the appellant. As per the agreement, the sale price for three mini buses was fixed at Rs.22 Lakhs to be paid by the first respondent. To satisfy the sale consideration, the first respondent gave a house at Door No.138, Kuttiyananjan Street, Sivakasi, valued at Rs.8.5 Lakhs and for the balance amount, as agreed between both the parties, finance under Hire Purchase was made and after payment through the said finance, only a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs was left to be paid by the first respondent to the appellant.
5.3.Due to some financial difficulties, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.190 of 2001, wherein the liability of Rs.3 Lakhs to the petitioner has been admitted. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents agreed to give 5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 some immovable property as security towards the said liability to the appellant.
Accordingly, the respondents gave the Title Deed No.5055/01, which was mentioned as 'A' schedule property in the suit. While depositing the title deed, the first respondent stated that superstructures have been put up in the year 1995 which has been shown in Schedule 'B'. The appellant herein insisted for the said security to be registered to which the second respondent was not willing. Thereafter, it was agreed by the respondents to execute a sale deed with regard to the said property towards payment of the balance amount by way of registered sale deed dated 22.11.2001 in favour of the appellant with respect to 'A' schedule property alone. In the said sale deed, the first respondent stood as witness. At the time of execution of the said sale deed, the appellant assured that he shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiffs and also assured that he shall reconvey the rights accrued by way of such sale deed, if the said sum of Rs.3 Lakhs is returned to the appellant within a period of five years.
5.4.Believing the words of the appellant, the second respondent executed a sale deed by imposing a lesser value of Rs.95,000/- to suit their convenience purely for security purpose. Thereafter, on further negotiation between the first respondent and the appellant, it was agreed to re-sell the bus bearing No.TN 67 C 3339 to the appellant for a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs, since by that time, the finance 6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 under 'Ashok Leyland Finance' nearly Rs.3 Lakhs was discharged. As such, the above said liability of Rs.3 Lakhs was discharged with the said amount. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the respondents claim act of eviction by the petitioner forcing the respondents / plaintiff to file another suit in O.S. No. 128 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, for permanent injunction. However, subsequent to the filing of the present suit in O.S.No.38 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, the earlier suits filed by the respondents were not pressed.
5.5.During trial, on behalf of the respondents / plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.30 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9 were marked and the Commissioner's report is marked as Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2. On completion of trial, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the Sub Court, Sivakasi in A.S.No.4 of 2022 and the appellate court also concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal, aggrieved by which the present Second Appeal has been preferred before this Court.
7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
6.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the present Second Appeal is filed raising the following questions of law:
1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation, since as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act as the plaintiffs have filed the suit on 15.02.2005 to declare the sale deed dated 22.11.2001 as null and void which is beyond the period of 3 years when the right to sue has accrued on 22.11.2001.
2) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the plaintiffs can lead evidence contrary to the documentary evidence viz Ex.A.30 sale deed dated 22.11.2001, which is against Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act?
7.Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no proper explanation for the delay in filing seeking the declaratory relief in respect of the sale deed executed by the respondents in the year 2001, however, such issue was not considered by the trial court. Accordingly, the appellant prays for allowing the second appeal.
8.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant himself played a fraud; on the one hand, he admitted that he 8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 purchased the property on 22.11.2001, whereas on the other hand he states that he purchased only the vacant site in 'A' schedule property and he did not disclose the three-storied building constructed by the respondents prior to the agreement. However, in the written statement, he specifically stated that he himself constructed the three-storied building within 6 months after purchase. However, in cross examination, he clearly admitted the he did not produce any approval with regard to the construction and he has controverted his very own written statement of defence in cross examination. It is further submitted that the appellant himself admitted that in cross examination that the respondents / plaintiffs are in possession. Further, the appellant himself admitted in the cross examination that there was an agreement for the purchase of 3 buses, in which he received Rs.19 Lakhs and balance Rs.3 lakhs has to be paid by the first respondent and subsequently, that amount was paid by re-selling one bus in his favour. All those facts were admitted by the appellant, which led trial Court to decree the suit, by declaring the sale deed dated 22.11.2001 as sham and nominal and confirmed the possession of the property in the suit schedule by arriving at a conclusion that 'B' schedule property form parts of the 'A' schedule property.
9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
9.It is the further submission of the learned counsel that insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, it is only from the date of accrual of cause of action and not from the date of sale. It is submitted that notice claiming title has been issued under Ex.A-4 on 16.4.2004 and, therefore, the clock starts its count only from that date and the suit has been laid well within time, which has been properly considered by the trial court while decreeing the suit and all these aspects have been properly considered by the appellate court while confirming the judgment and decree and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the same.
10.This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11.The business transactions between the appellant and the respondents is not disputed and so also the execution of the sale deed. However, the appellant claims that it is an outright sale, while the claim made by the respondents is that it is not a sale, but it is only a security which is given for the purpose of discharge of a debt, which has been discharged.
10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
12.It is to be pointed out that this Court sitting under the second appellate jurisdiction is tasked only with answering questions of law and it is not to appreciate the evidence as is being done by the first appellate court. Both the trial court and the first appellate court have given a concurrent finding holding that the sale transaction is only a security transaction and it is not a sale and the sale claimed by the appellant is sham and nominal.
13.The plea of limitation is raised by the appellant as a question of law. To impress upon this Court on the said submission, the appellant projects that the sale deed was executed on 22.11.2001 and the appellant had initiated the rent control proceedings as early as on 16.8.2004 and no steps having taken by the respondent within a period of three years and the suit has been laid only in the year 2005, the plea of the respondents is hit by limitation.
14.In this regard, Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes that within a period of three years from the date of notice with regard to questioning the sale, suit can be laid. In the case on hand, a perusal of the materials placed before the trial court reveals that the sale deed was executed on 22.11.2001. The notice was issued by the respondents to the appellants on 25.1.2005 (Ex.A-6), which 11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 has been received by the appellant on 29.1.2005 (Ex.A-7) and on 15.2.2005, the respondents have filed the suit, O.S. No.38/2005.
15.The respondents are not questioning the execution of the sale deed. The respondents only claims that the sale deed was executed for security purposes and upon payment of the balance sum of Rs.3 Lakhs, the appellant ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the respondents. Since the appellant did not come forward to execute the sale deed after receiving the sum of Rs.3 Laks the suit has been filed.
16.It is borne out by record that as per Ex.A-3, a case has been filed by the respondents against the appellant in the year 2003 and only upon the filing of the said suit, the eviction petition in rent control proceedings has been filed by the appellant under Ex.A-4 on 16.4.2004. There was no claim for rent or notice in this regard earlier in point of time to the filing of the eviction petition. This itself clearly shows that only to defeat the legitimate rights of the respondents, the appellant has filed the rent control case. Therefore, the appellant cannot now come out and say that only to defeat his rights, the suit in O.S. No.38/2005 has been laid. Further, it is to be seen that upon the rent control petition being filed, notice has been given to the appellant by the 12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 respondents and upon receipt of reply, the suit in O.S. No.38/2005 has come to be filed.
17.Further, it is to be pointed out that only when the appellant denies that the property was not given as security, but had been sold to him, the period of limitation to file a suit starts and it is only on 16.4.2004, the appellant had denied to execute the sale deed to the respondents and, therefore, on and from the said date, the respondents have to file the suit within three years and the suit has been laid on 15.2.2005, which is well within the period of three years and, therefore, is not hit by limitation. The findings in the above regard has been properly arrived at by the trial court and the said aspect has been rightly accepted by the first appellate court and this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding and, therefore, the plea of limitation deserves to be rejected.
18.The only other issue, which requires consideration of this Court is with regard to the finding of the courts below on the aspect that the sale deed is, in fact, a deed of security and not a sale in the strictest sense and, therefore, the respondents having cleared the dues, the appellant is bound to re-execute the sale deed in their favour.
13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
19.To address this issue, the trial court had adverted to the cross examination of the appellant in which the sale of three mini buses for Rs.22 Lakhs has been admitted. The appellant further admitted in cross examination that the 1st respondent had paid a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) and a balance sum of Rs.3 Lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs only) has to be paid. It is further admitted that on 9.4.2001, the 1st respondent agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs.3 Lakhs. From the above it clearly transpires that from out of the sale consideration of the vehicles, the 1st respondent had paid a sum of Rs.19 Lakhs and balance sum of Rs.3 Lakhs was due to be paid by the 1st respondent to the appellant. It is also agreed by either side that 15 days prior to 22.11.2001 the 1st respondent had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, viz., the 2nd respondent. In this backdrop, it is the case of the respondents that only on the insistence of the appellant, the suit schedule property has been given as security, but couched as sale deed. It is the further stand of the respondents that only because the said security has been couched as sale deed, the respondents are still in possession of the property and residing in the same and further it is the stand of the respondents that since it is for security purpose, it has been shown as if an asbestos sheet is put up on the property, though a three storied building has been put up on the property and the property has been 14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 said to be sold for Rs.85,000/-. Though the above facts have been disputed by the appellant, however, for the purpose of claiming that the building on the land has been put up by the appellant, no documents evidencing the planning permission and other relevant statutory clearances have been placed before the Court; whereas on the side of the respondents, the planning permission along with the sketch had been filed as Ex.A-9. Therefore, all the document belies the case of the appellant with regard to the sale of the suit schedule property by the respondents.
20.Further, one other aspect which also stares writ large on the case of the appellant is the fact that a settlement deed had been executed by the 1st respondent in favour of his wife, viz., the 2nd respondent with regard to the suit schedule property 15 days before the alleged sale deed. If really the intention of the respondents is for sale of the suit schedule property, the reason for such a settlement 15 days prior to the sale deed has not been placed before the court by the appellant. This clearly establishes that the suit schedule property had been given only as security and the sale deed is only for the purpose of fulfilling the needs of the parties and is not a sale in the eye of law, which is also evident from the value of the property as shown in the sale deed, which is shown as mere Rs.85,000/-.
15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025
21.In the light of the above, it is clear that the rent control proceedings have been filed by the appellant only to frustrate the suit and prolong the prolong the proceedings and it could only be termed to be a counter offensive measure taken by the appellant against the respondents in view of the notice issued by the respondents to reclaim their property, which facts have been been properly appreciated by the courts below while dismissing the rent control proceedings and this Court is of the considered view that the decision in the rent control proceedings also does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.
22.The decisions relied on by the courts below to arrive at the aforesaid findings also support the case of the respondents by laying down the ratio in favour of the respondents and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to advert to any ratio laid down on the issue, as such exercise has already been taken by the courts below.
23.On a holistic consideration of the entire documentary evidence and coupled with the findings arrived at by the trial court, which has been affirmed by the appellate court, this Court is of the considered view that the concurrent 16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 findings recorded by both the courts below are reasoned, justified and proper and the same does not suffer the vice of any illegality or perversity and the questions of law raised in this appeal are not questions of law, muchless substantial questions of law, which require the consideration of this Court and, therefore, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed and a consequence thereof, the revision petition also deserves to be dismissed.
24.Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, no questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal and the second appeal stands dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the Civil Revision Petition also stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
23.06.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No MR 17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 To
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Sivakasi.
2.The Rent Controller / District Munsif Court, Sivakasi.
3.The District Munsif Court, Sivakasi.
4.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
MR C.R.P. (MD) NO.39 OF 2021 and S.A. (MD) NO.58 OF 2025 23.06.2025 19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm )