Madrasdated High Court · 2025

CRP.No.3722 of 2025O.S.No.36 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Court, Chengalpattu.For Petitioner(s):Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Advocate for M/s.Sarvabhuman AssociatesFor Respondent(s):Mr.S.S.SwaminathanORDERChallenging the order dated 06-03-2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2023 on O.S.No.36 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Court, Chengalpattu, the revision petitioners/defendants have preferred the present civil revision petition.2.The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Court, Chengalpattu, seeking the relief to declare the sale deed dated 25.02.2015 executed by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of the third petitioner/third defendant as null and void and not to alienate the suit property and to pay rental income of Rs.90,000/-, which is 1/4th share of rental income derived from the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff from December 2019. The petitioners/defendants have filed their written statement, necessary issues were framed and trial has been commenced. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, PW1 was examined and 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 2025the case was posted for cross-examination of PW1. At that stage, the petitioners/defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.36 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation, suppression of material facts of admission made by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.112 of 2015 and suppression of issue of reply notice for the respondent's/plaintiff's notice. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated 06.03.2025 dismissed the application on the ground that the present suit, which has been filed for declaration and for other consequential relief, has to be decidede by adducing proper evidence by both sides and further, suppression of material facts and issuance of notices are concerned, the said facts can be decided only at the time of trial. 3.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners/defendants have preferred the present civil revision petition. 4.According to the revision petitioners/defendants in the affidavit filed by them in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.36 of 2020, it has been stated that the suit itself is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 2025as per law. In the plaint, it is admitted that the respondent/plaintiff has executed the sale deed in respect of her 1/3rd share on 25.02.2015. The said sale deed confirms that the respondent/plaintiff has received a consideration of Rs.1.35 crores. On the contrary, the plaint also falsely alleges that the revision petitioners/defendants have not paid the market value of the 1/3rd share. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.112 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Court, Chengalpattu, against the second petitioner's/second defendant's husband, in which, the respondent/plaintiff has categorically admitted about the sale deed dated 25.02.2015. The consideration amount received by the respondent/plaintiff has been admitted for the sale of 1/3rd share of the suit property to the third petitioner/third defendant by the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, there is no cause of action for filing the suit. 5.The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the revision petitioners/defendants have filed written statement and issues were framed and the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the case was posted for PW1 cross-examination and at that stage, without any change of circumstances, the revision petitioners/defendants have filed an 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 2025application to reject the plaint only to protract the proceedings and enjoy the property without giving any share to the respondent/plaintiff, which she is legally entitled. The revision petitioners/defendants neither in their legal notice nor in their affidavit had not disputed the execution of mutual agreement dated 25.02.2015, wherein, the revision petitioners/defendants agreed to pay the prevailing market value in future with respect to 1/3rd share in the suit property, which was relinquished by the respondent/plaintiff. It is clear that the suit is filed within limitation and there is cause of action and there are disputed facts, which can be agitated only during trial.6.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants would submit that the Court below overlooked the fact that the date of execution of sale deed was on 25.02.2015 and the suit was filed on 19.12.2019 and numbered on 28.01.2020 after a lapse of five years. He would further submit that the Court below failed to consider that Article 59 of the Limitation Act contemplates only three years limitation to question the validity of the sale deed. It is further submitted that the Court below failed to see that the respondent/plaintiff has knowledge of the sale deed. Further, he would submit that the non-payment of sale consideration could not be a 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 2025ground to cancel the sale deed and the Court below also failed to see that the application to reject the plaint can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. To strengthen his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, to show that the definition of “sale” under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, indicates that there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another i.e transfer of all rights and interest in the property, which was possessed by the transferor to the transferee. The transferor cannot retain any part of the interest or right in the property or else it would not be a sale. The plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance sale consideration, but, could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed. Yet another judgment of this Court in The Melur Co-operative Marketing Society Vs. Salia Maniam and others reported in (1972) 2 MadLJ 406, to show that the payment of the price is not necessarily a sine qua non to the completion of the sale. If the intention is that the property should pass on registration, the sale is complete as soon as the deed is registered, whether the price has been paid or not. Then the purchaser is entitled to sue for possession, although he has not paid the price.6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 20257.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that since the defendants have accepted to pay the sale consideration in future, for which, they had executed a mutual agreement, considering the relationship the plaintiff had executed a sale deed. Whenever the respondent/plaintiff asked to pay the amount, the revision petitioners/defendants dragged on by giving evasive reply. Taking into consideration the relationship between the parties, the plaintiff also waited. Since the revision petitioners/defendants could not pay the sale consideration, they agreed to execute the sale deed with respect to 1/4th share in the suit property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Later, on 28.10.2017, they refused to give her 1/4th share in the suit property nor the sale consideration, as per the mutual agreement dated 25.02.2015. Hence, the suit is filed within the limitation period i.e. within the knowledge from the date of fraud and therefore, there is no merit in this petition and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below. 8.This Court has considered the submissions advanced by either side and perused the materials on record. 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 20259.The first and second petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 are the sisters of the respondent's/plaintiff's husband and the third petitioner/ third defendant is the aunt of the respondent's/plaintiff's husband.10.It is seen from the records that the suit has been filed to declare the sale deed dated 25.02.2015 executed by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of third petitioner/third defendant as null and void. The main contention of the revision petitioners/defendants is that the plaint has to be rejected on the ground of limitation, suppression of material facts of admission made by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.112 of 2015 and suppression of issue of reply notice for the plaintiff's notice. The next contention of the revision petitioners/defendants is that the sale consideration has already been received by the respondent/plaintiff for sale of 1/3rd share of the suit property to third petitioner/third defendant by the respondent/plaintiff. 11.It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the revision petitioners/defendants have accepted to pay the sale consideration in future, for which, they had executed a mutual agreement and considering the 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 2025relationship, the respondent/plaintiff had executed a sale deed. 12.It is well settled that an application for rejection of plaint can be decided by the Court on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the pleadings made in the written statement is not necessary.13.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karam Singh Vs. Amarjit Singh and Others, reported in 2025 INSC 1238, wherein, it has been held that the defendant seek rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, which makes it clear that while considering rejection of the plaint, thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At that stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint.14.It is seen from the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff has pleaded in paragraph no.6 that on 25.02.2015, she has executed her 1/3rd share over the suit schedule property in favour of the third petitioner/third defendant by 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 2025executing a sale deed in Doc.No.416/2015. Further, in paragraph no.7, it has been stated that but the revision petitioners/defendants have not paid the market value of the 1/3rd share over the suit schedule property as per the mutual agreement dated 25.02.2015 to the respondent/plaintiff and whenever, the respondent/plaintiff asked the revision petitioners/defendants to pay the amount, the revision petitioners/defendants evaded from paying the amount and at one point of time, the revision petitioners/defendants expressed their inability to pay the respondent/plaintiff her 1/3rd market value as agreed by them in the mutual agreement entered on 25.02.2015. Since the revision petitioners/defendants could not pay the share amount to the respondent/plaintiff, they expressed their willingness to give 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. 15.It is seen from the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff has narrated the events took place from the year 2010 till the filing of the suit. As per the pleadings, there is a cause of action for the suit. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and the fact and cause of action is the bundle of facts and the same could be proved after elaborate trial. Further, as far as the suppression of material facts and issuance of notices are concerned, the same 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 2025can be considered only at the time of trial and as such there is no sufficient reasons adduced to reject the paint. Upon hearing either side and perusing the plaint averments, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below.Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed. 22.10.2025nsdToThe Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu.11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 2025M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.nsdCRP.No.3722 of 202512/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.3722 of 202522.10.202513/13