K MURUGESAN Vs. SECTHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three defendants in C.S.No.175 of 1989 pending trial on the original side this Court have preferred these appeals against the order of Srinivasan, J. under which order their respective applications for revocation of the leave to sue granted to the plaintiff Application No.1194 of 1989 have been dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff has instituted the above mentioned suit for cancellation and setting the sale agreement dated 24.2.1989 filed as suit document No.1 and for granting injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or disturbing the plaintiffs possession of immoveable property mentioned in the schedule. THE material facts as stated in the plaint presented to court are as follows: (i) the plaintiff is the wife of one P.K.Unni, a Hindu, aged 42 years permanently residing No.55, S.R.P.Nagar, Saibaba Colony, Coimba-tore-9 now temporarily staying at Madras; (ii) the first defendant-appellant in O.S.A. No.151 of 1989 is residing and carrying business at No.26-A, Sir C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Madras, within the jurisdiction of this Court; (iii) the second defendant-appellant in O.S.A. No.166 of 1989 is a resident of 1/22, Kasthuri Naickenpalayam, Vadavalli Post, Coimbatore-41; (iv) the third defendant-appellant in O.S.A.No.165 of 1989 is a business concern owned controlled by one S. Balas-ubramaniam. Its exact legal constitution is not known to plaintiff. It has got its office at No.1, Gopalapuram 2nd Street, Coimbatore. (v) Plaintiffs husband Unni lost heavily almost about Rs.50 lakhs or even more in the business of film production, although several persons owed money to the tune of lakhs to him. He was unable to recover any amount "due to his soft nature". His creditors harassed him and even threatened with criminal action, especially by the 1st and defendants. THE plaintiff " s husband and third defendant had entered into an agreement dated 8.12.1987 at Madras under which the former granted some rights over a "Kalaiyum Neeye Malayum Neeye" which he produced in partnership with one Sundararajan and Poon-uraj. This agreement led to claims and counterclaims between them. In October, 1988, the plaintiffs husband issued a cash cheque in favour of the3rd defendant which for some other transaction, but when the third defendant presented the said cheque South Indian Bank Ltd., Mylapore Branch, Madras, on 28.1.1989, the same was returned unpaid, the third defendant filed a police complaint against the plaintiff " s husband on basis; (vi) THE third defendant " s henchmen started creating problems at the plaintiffs house Coimbatore pelting stones, threatening and abusing the plaintiff and her son for the of the claim of the third defendant not paid by her husband. THE plaintiffs husband police complaint at Coimbatore which however invoked no response. (vii) A local Police Officer at Coimbatore by name Mr.Nizzammuddin at that juncture came the plaintiffs house, threatened to arrest the entire family in the event of their not the claim of the 3rd defendant. THE plaintiffs husband got anticipatory bail on 1.2.1989 2.2.1989 apprehending action by the Crime Branch, Egmore, Madras and B2 Police Station, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1225 and 1226 of 1989; (viii) THE first defendant also started threatening the plaintiffs husband holding him ransom on the basis of the blank papers on which the plaintiff " s husband had signed borrowing monies. THE third defendant and the 1st defendant started acting hand in with each other. THE plaintiffs husband filed I.P.No.3 of 1989 on the file of this Court and himself adjudicated as insolvent on 10.2.1989. He also obtained on 10.2.1989 an order interim protection against arrest with reference to any of his debts in Application No.63 1989 in this Court, (ix) In spite of the above orders, the third defendant's complaint against the plaintiffs husband was somehow taken on file by B-2 police station, Coimbatore, in Crime No.327 1989. THE plaintiff's husband was arrested on 19.2.1989 at her Coimbatore house within jurisdiction of B-2 Police Station. THE plaintiff came to know of this only on 21.2.1989 she had gone to Chittlancheri to her sister-in-law's house; (x) On 21.2.1989, the plaintiff as well as her sister-in-law were arrested by Coimbatore Police at Chittlancheri, Palghat District, Kerala, at the house of the plaintiff's sister This arrest was effected, for, "it seems the Coimbatore Police has made a requisition Alathoor Police Station that the plaintiff and her sister-in-law here required to be them for interrogation. Hence a police officer, or may be a constable, from Alathoor had also accompanied the Coimbatore Police when the plaintiff and her sister-in apprehended at Chittlancheri". THE plaintiff and her sister-in-law were first taken to a house's farm house" at the outskirts to Coimbatore and detained there, where presence of Police Sub Inspector Mr.Madhavan, the third defendant, another person by Prabhakaran, a local political leader, who had also accompanied the police took signatures the plaintiff on several blank papers under coercion and threats." On 21.2.1989 itself and her sister-in-law were brought to A-3 Police Station and illegally detained there evening of 23.2.1989. Her son was also under illegal detention in B-3 Police Station this period having been apprehended from Coimbatore on 21.2.1989. During this they were humiliated, threatened and nagged constantly. THE third defendant with men was present. One Srinivasulu owner of Alanker THEatre, Coimbatore, had also behalf of the 3rd defendant to settle the issue. THEy (the plaintiff, her sister-in-law son) were warned that unless they signed proper documents conveying the plaintiffs to the third defendant, a series of serious criminal cases would be filed against them they would be in prison for the rest of their lives. (xi) In the meantime on 20.2.1989, the plaintiffs husband had been remanded to Prison, Coimbatore, and released on bail only in the afternoon of 23.2.1989. From itself he was brought straight to B-3 Police Station and from there the plaintiff, her husband, son and sister-in-law were taken to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Coimbatore. THE first defendant was present at the office of the Deputy Superintendent Police, Coimbatore, along with 2nd and 3rd defendants besides Prabhakaran and Srinivasulu.

(3.) THE learned single Judge answered the three contentions holding, (i) one of the on which the agreement dated 24.2.1989 is attacked is that the object thereof is the law of insolvency and therefore it is illegal and unenforceable and hence the of the plaintiff's husband is a fact which if traversed it will be necessary to be proved plaintiff in order to entitle the plaintiff to a judgment of this Court. THErefore, undoubtedly a part of the cause of action. (ii) THE question as to whether on principle Sec.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure read in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court or independent of it, and a suit maintainable before this Court if one of the defendants, if there are more then residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, is of considerable importance which should be examined at the stage of deciding the question as to whether to grant the leave revoke the leave granted, (iii) It is not a suit for land situated in Coimbatore and consequently the contention suit is not maintainable is not acceptable.