S K RAJENDRAN Vs. K SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the second respondent. No appearance for the first respondent.

(2.) CHALLENGING the fair order and decretal order, dated 23.03.2007 made in E.A.No.66 of 2007 in E.P.No.77 of 2004 in O.S.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharamapuram, this Civil Revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.B.Dyaneswaran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the claim made by the petitioner herein in the year 2007, by way of filing E.A.No.66 of 2007 is based on a time barred promissory note, hence, the plea of the petitioner is not sustainable. Though equitable mortgage needs no compulsory registration, the bonafide of the document cannot be accepted in this case. The petitioner is making claim, based on a promissory note, dated 10.09.1997, so far he has not filed any suit to get any decree against the first respondent. Even based on the alleged equitable mortgage deed, said to have been created on 15.09.1997, no suit was filed and no decree was obtained till date and therefore, the claim made by the petitioner / third party is not legally sustainable and therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner / third party.