E.K. PALANISAMY Vs. P.C. KRISHNAN AND ORS.
LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-341
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 04,2015

E.K. PALANISAMY Appellant
VERSUS
P.C. Krishnan And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Mala, J. - (1.)HEARD both sides.
(2.)THIS Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 292 of 2014 in O.S. No. 228 of 2012 by the learned II Additional District Court, Erode dated 20.02.2015 for dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first respondent herein/plaintiff, filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. The averments in the plaint is that as per the settlement deed dated 24.07.1950 between V.C. Periyasamy Mudaliar and Vinayathammal and Vinayathammal was given life estate in respect of the suit property and dwelling house and she had the right to enjoy the usufructs of the properties till her life time without any power of alienation and after her death, the properties should go to V.C. Periasamy Mudaliar and after his death, the properties should go to his heirs. Vinayathammal died on 07.11.1994, so, as per the settlement deed, the respondents have inherited the property from whom, the first respondent/plaintiff herein purchased the property for valuable consideration and thus the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property from the date of purchase viz., 5.11.2001.

(3.)THE case of the petitioner herein is that he got the property by way of Will executed by Vinayathammal, who was owner of the suit property. Even though the first respondent herein viz., the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 123 of 2008, in his pleadings stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 05.11.2001, he has not specifically mentioned when he has been given possession; when he is dispossessed of from the property. Further more, according to the petitioner, on the death of Vinayathammal, as per the Will, as a legatee, he got the suit property, and got possession, hence, suit filed in O.S. 228 of 2012 is barred by limitation; hence, he filed an application in I.A. No. 292 of 2014 for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial court. The first respondent herein viz., the plaintiff filed objection/counter statement before the trial court in I.A. No. 292 of 2014 stating that the petition filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 228 of 2012 is with the malafide intention of dragging on the above suit.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.