Madras High Court
Palani vs Poovaathal on 4 September, 2014
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA C.R.P.No.3186 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 1. Palani 2. Shanthamani ... Petitioners ..vs.. Poovaathal ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.06.2014 passed in I.A.No.271 of 2014 in O.S.No.433 of 2010 by the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the dismissal order dated 24.06.2014 passed in I.A.No.271 of 2014 in O.S.No.433 of 2010 by the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.
2. At the time of admission, argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is heard in length.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, as plaintiffs, have filed a suit for bare injunction stating that they purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.2010 from one Nanjan vahaiyara and from that date onwards, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same; and that the defendant, who is a third party, interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit property.
4. The defendant, in her Written Statement, disputed the genuineness of the document dated 22.11.2010 and stated that she is the owner of the suit property and she purchased the suit property through a sale deed dated 05.04.2010 and also through a consent agreement dated 13.06.2010 and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the suit stating that the suit is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title. Moreover, the defendant claimed counter claim in her written statement.
5. After the filing of the Written Statement, the trial Court has framed issues and when the matter was posted for trial, the petitioners have come forward with the application for withdrawing the suit, with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action stating that they have filed the suit for the relief of bare injunction alone, instead of seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential injunction. But the trial Court after hearing both sides, had dismissed the said application. Hence, the revision petitioners have preferred the present Revision.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the averments made in typed set of papers.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that since the petitioners filed the suit for bare injunction and now the defendant disputed the sale deed dated 22.11.2010 and also claiming title to the property, it is necessary for the petitioners to file a fresh suit seeking the relief of declaration of their title and consequential injunction and hence, they have to plead more particulars in this suit and therefore, they sought permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. But the trial Court has not considered the same and dismissed the same. Hence, the petitioners prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court. However, on perusal of the written statement it is seen that the the defendant also claimed counter claim of injunction and also paid Court Fee.
8. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiffs filed a suit for bare injunction stating that they are real owners of the suit property as per the sale deed dated 22.11.2010, and the suit has been filed on 22.12.2010, immediately after the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiffs. But according to the Written Statement, the defendant is in possession of the suit property and she purchased the same on 05.04.2010 and also obtained consent agreement on 13.06.2010, ie., much earlier than the plaintiffs purchased the same. Once the defendant is in possession and in the Written Statement itself she has specifically stated that the suit is not maintainable, without a prayer for declaration of title and in paragraphs 12 and 13 made counter claim of injunction stating that she is in possession and enjoyment. Once the plaintiffs claimed that they are the owners of the property, they will very well file a fresh suit instead of seeking permission to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the basis of the same cause of action. I do not find any merits in this Revision.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
04.09.2014 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mra R.MALA, J., mra To The District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.
C.R.P.No.3186 of 2014and M.P.No.1 of 2014 (2/2) 04.09.2014