MAHINDRA WORLD CITY DEVELOPERS Vs. M. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners/Defendants in O.S. No.100 of 2022 filed a Petition I.A. No.2 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the Plaint in O.S. No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu which was rejected by the Trial Court by Order, dtd. 2/3/2024. Against which, the present Petition is filed.

(2.) The background of the case is that the Respondents filed a Suit in O.S. No.100 of 2022 seeking for cancellation of the Deed of Exchange, dtd. 18/5/2007 registered as Document No.7090 of 2007 on the file of Joint-II SRO, Chengalpattu, the Subsequent Deed of Rectification of said Exchange Deed, dtd. 29/6/2007 registered as Document No.9088 of 2007 on the file of SRO Joint-II, Chengalpattu and consequently Permanent Injunction restraining the Petitioners, their men and agents interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Respondents over the Suit properties. The Petitioners approached the Respondents, who are the absolute and exclusive Owners of the Suit properties, to an extent of 0.04 cents in Survey No.97/10, an extent of 0.79 cents in Survey No.101/1, an extent of 0.01 cents in Survey No.112/1B1 and an extent of 0.08 cents in Survey No.1B2, totally to an extent of 0.92 cents of Veerapuram Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. The Petitioners requested to give the Suit Schedule properties for consideration and they promised to give same extent of land in Paranur Village, Survey No.146/1 having an extent of 0.35 cents, Survey No.146/2 to an extent of 0.52 cents and Survey No.146/3A to an extent of 0.05 cents by way of executing an Exchange Deed, in order to enable the Defendants to extend their business activities. As agreed by both the Petitioners and the Respondents, an Exchange Deed was executed on 18/5/2007, pursuant to the Exchange Deed, the Respondents handed over physical possession of their properties comprised in Survey Nos.97/10, 101/1, 112/1B1 & 112/1B2 of Veerapuram Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and the Petitioners handed over their properties at Paranur Village. Thereafter, the Respondents faced intervention from some Third parties which was brought to the knowledge of the Petitioners and the Petitioners suggested to remove Survey No.146/3A having an extent of 0.05 cents from the Exchange Deed by executing the Deed of Rectification and assured to give the same extent in another survey number. Believing their words, the Respondents agreed and Deed of Rectification was executed between them on 29/6/2007. Despite several demands made by the Respondents, the Petitioners failed to give the said extent of 0.05 cents till date and Pattas were mutated. During the month of June 2021, the Respondents measured the properties comprised in Paranur Village with the assistance of Firka Surveyor and found there is only 0.80 cents available in Survey Nos.146/1 & 146/2. When enquired, it was found that before execution of the Exchange Deed, there was some dispute between the Petitioners and the inhabitants of the Village, who constructed a temple and the Petitioners orally waived off the land of 0.12 cents comprised in Survey Nos.146/1, 146/2 & 146/3A of Paranur Village for village temple situated in a corner of the land. By suppressing the above facts, the Petitioners entered into an Exchange Deed, thereby got the properties having good and marketable title from the Respondent and given disputed and worthless properties to them. After gaining knowledge during June 2021, for about eight months the Respondents approached the Petitioners to compensate for the disputed extent of 0.12 cents. Thereafter, the Respondents issued Legal Notice to the Petitioners on 21/6/2021 followed by another Legal Notice, dtd. 1/3/2022 which was replied by the Petitioners on 11/3/2022. Since the reply was false and baseless, Suit was filed. On filing the Suit, the Petitioners filed a Petition to reject the Plaint. In the meanwhile, the Respondents took possession of the schedule mentioned properties of Veerapuram Village on 7/3/2022, since the Petitioners not taken over the properties.

(3.) The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the Trial Court failed to note that the Suit was filed with an unexplained delay of 15 years, Plaint filed by the Respondent is for cancellation of Exchange Deed, dtd. 18/5/2007 vide Document No.7090 of 2007 and the Deed of Rectification, dtd. 29/6/2007 vide Document No.9088 of 2007 and the Suit was filed in the year 2021 seeking to set aside the documents of the year 2007. The only explanation given by the Respondents is that the Respondents engaged a Firka Surveyor during June 2021 and then they came to know encroached, 0.07 cents not available. He would submit that the Respondents admit that they were put in possession of the property way back in the year 2007. The Trial Court failed to note the scope and application of Article 59 of the Limitation Act. It is well settled that registration of an instrument tantamount, as notice to public at large. Sec. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that where a transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument, from the date of registration of the instrument. The Respondents/ Plaintiffs are party to the said instrument. In view of the above admitted position, the registered instrument cannot be challenged belatedly. Further, the Respondents by clever drafting of concocted facts attempting to make an illusory cause of action and bringing the Suit within the period of limitation cannot be sustained in view of the legal bar and prohibition. Hence, the Suit is a gross abuse of process of law, liable to be rejected on the point of limitation. On a demurrer if the Plaint is admitted to be true, then to the Suit is barred for a claim under Sec. 119 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Plaintiffs had the knowledge of alleged deprivation on the day of the Exchange again entered into Deed of rectification now casually claiming that they did not survey the land and only in the year 2021 after employing the Firka Surveyor, they came to know of the shortfall of the land on the face of it barred under law. Further in Paragraph No.4 of the Plaint, it is claimed that the Petitioners promised to allot 0.05 acres of land as Compensation for the removal of error in Survey No.146/3A. Except for the vague statement, the Respondents not filed any iota of documentary evidence to confirm the same. Even in the Deed of Rectification, dtd. 29/6/2007 there is no mention of any such arrangement between the Petitioners and now the Respondents makes such pleadings to file the Suit.