T. GAJENDRAN Vs. T. AMSA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is the mother of the revision petitioner. The respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 4691 of 2015 against her son, the revision petitioner for bare injunction not to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also stated that alleged settlement deed dated 03.04.2006 is sham and nominal and she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The revision petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 23256 of 2015 challenging the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed. During pendency of the above said writ petition, the respondent filed another suit in O.S. No. 2301 of 2017 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai to declare that the settlement deed dated 03.04.2006 as null and void, since the revision petitioner has filed the writ petition for unilateral cancellation of settlement deed as null and void. Therefore, she has filed the subsequent suit for declaration of settlement deed as null and void. During the pendency of the said suit in O.S. No. 2301 of 2017, the revision petitioner has filed the present revision petition to reject the plaint on the ground that the second suit is hit by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC by saying that when the respondent filed the first suit on that day itself and the cause of action for the second suit had already accrued. Therefore, without seeking the relief of declaration of the settlement deed dated 03.04.2006 as null and void in the earlier suit, now, without leave of the Court, she cannot file a separate suit for declaration of settlement deed executed on 03.04.2006 as null and void, further the relief sought for in the original suit of the year 2017, were also barred by limitation.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the respondent herein is the mother of the revision petitioner, she has executed the settlement deed dated 03.04.2006. Subsequently, she has filed the suit in O.S. No. 4691 of 2016 for bare injunction and she has also filed the suit in O.S. No. 2301 of 2017 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai for declaring that the settlement deed executed by the plaintiff, in favour of the respondent, as null and void. Therefore, he has filed the present revision before this Court to reject the plaint on the following two reasons:

(3.) Now, since the cause of action already accrued, when the first suit was filed in O.S. No. 4691 of 2016. The said suit is still pending, without the leave of the Court, she has filed the present suit in O.S. No. 2301 of 2017 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. Since she is party to the settlement deed, she has to file suit within three years from the date of execution of the settlement deed. She cannot unilaterally cancel the settlement deed. Therefore, he filed writ petition the same is pending. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Judge warrants interference.