Madras High Court
Muniyappan vs K.Periyasamy on 21 January, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.3523 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-01-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No. 3523 of 2024
1.Muniyappan
2.Eswari
Petitioners 1 and 2 represented by their Power of
Attorney Agent -Miss.Pushpavalli, D/o.Murugan
.....Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1.K.Periyasamy
2.V.Savitha
3.The Sub Registrar,
Kunnathur Sub Registration Office,
Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District.
.... Respondent(s)
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to
set aside the ex parte judgement and decree dated 08.08.2023 in O.S.No.625 of
2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur
District, suo motu rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC and to
restore the suit in O.S.No.625 of 2023 back into file for being disposed of the
same on merits.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Jaganathan
For Respondent(s) : P.Tamilavel for RR1 and 2
Dr.S.Suriya,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 7
C.R.P.No.3523 of 2024
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Jaganathan
Addl. Government Pleader for R3
ORDER
Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgement and decree dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, suo motu rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.625 of 2023 under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC, even without hearing any of the parties on the ground that the claim was hopelessly barred by limitation.
2. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The suit was filed by the revision petitioners for a declaratory decree (i) declaring the registered power of attorney deed dated 12.12.2007 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the 1st defendant vide Doc.No.626/Bk4/2007 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kunnathur, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs; (ii) the registered sale deed dated 14.11.2011 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant vide Doc.No.6633 of 2011 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 of 7 C.R.P.No.3523 of 2024 Kunnathur, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs; (iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to return all the original documents in respect of the suit schedule property; (iv) permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property to any third party; and (v) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men, agents, servants, or any other person or persons claiming through them from any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
3. The said suit was initially laid by the revision petitioner before the learned District Munsif at Avinashi. The said suit was laid on the premise that in a loan transaction, the defendants obtained various documents by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs taking advantage of their illiteracy. The plaintiffs were forced to sign such documents under the pretext that they were just mortgage deeds. Otherwise the plaint proceeds as if there is a total fraud committed by the defendant. The learned Principal District Munsif, had, originally entertained a doubt with regard to valuation of the subject-matter of suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and the requisite court-fees paid thereof under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 of 7 C.R.P.No.3523 of 2024 Thereafter, it appears that the 1st defendant taken out an application in I.A.No.499 of 2014 seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint was insufficiently stamped. The learned District Munsif, however, dismissed the application filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC with a direction to the plaintiffs to value the suit claim under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1995 and pay the proper court-fees on or before 14.11.2011 and in the event of failure to do so, the plaint will stand dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs valued the suit claim under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and paid appropriate court- fees. Thereafter, as the valuation of the subject-matter of suit exceeded the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction the suit had been transferred by the Principal District Munsif to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur where the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.625 of 2023 and the same was ordered to be listed on 08.08.2023.
4. When the suit was listed for hearing on 08.08.2023, the learned Principal District Judge, by his judgement and decree suo motu, rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC, on the ground of limitation. The learned District Judge has, in fact, assumed the role of the defendants to go into the merits of the case without even hearing the plaintiffs. The issue of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 of 7 C.R.P.No.3523 of 2024 limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, without even hearing any of the parties, the learned District Judge passed his order mainly on the ground limitation, and the issue of limitation has to be tested in the trial. When the plea of fraud has been raised in the plaint, the learned District Judge ought to have considered the provision of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5. Whether the documents were influenced by the act of fraud or not is a matter of evidence, and only in that context the issue of limitation has to be decided. Whereas, without even going into the merits of the pleadings and without even giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs, the suit was rejected learned District Judge, which, in the considered view of this court, is not at all proper and legally sustainable.
6. In the light of the discussion made above, the revision succeeds, and the order impugned in the revision rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.625 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, is set aside. The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, is directed to number the application and decide the issue on its own merits after giving an opportunity to both the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is made clear that the issue of limitation is always a mixed question of fact and law, and therefore, the issue of limitation, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 of 7 C.R.P.No.3523 of 2024 particularly when the plea of fraud has been raised in the plaint, could be tested only on evidence during trial. The learned Principal District Judge shall decide the suit on its own merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed accordingly with the above directions. No costs.
Index : yes / no 21-01-2025
Neutral Citation : yes / no
kmk
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 of 7 C.R.P.No.3523 of 2024 N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk C.R.P.No.3523 of 2024
21..01..2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 of 7