S. SHANMUGAM Vs. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 07.10.2014 made in I.A.No.804 of 2014 in O.S.No.463 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

(2.) The petitioner is 4th defendant, respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondents 3 to 5 are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.463 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the said suit against the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from carrying out any mutation of the revenue records in the name of the petitioner and permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from in any way interfering with respondents peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner filed written statement on 07.07.2011. Trial commenced. The respondents 1 and 2 examined P.W.1. P.W.1 filed proof affidavit on 10.02.2014 and marked the documents. The petitioner took time to cross-examine P.W.1. At this stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.804 of 2014 under Section 151 of C.P.C to strike off the plaint on the ground of fraud played by the respondents 1 and 2 by suppressing material facts and fabrication of false evidence. According to the petitioner, the said property is Trust property. The original owner P.Sivaprakasa naiker and joint owners have created Public Charitable Trust by the deed of trust dated 26.03.1953. After his death, his daughter Mrs.Kamala, the mother of the second respondent knew about the Charitable Trust and proof of the Trust. Inspite of the same, she settled the property on the second respondent by deed of settlement dated 21.07.2008. The respondents 1 and 2 did not approach the Court with clean hands and patta issued in the name of the first respondent was cancelled. The respondents 1 and 2 suppressed these facts and filed the suit and prayed for striking off the plaint.

(3.) The second respondent filed counter affidavit which was adopted by the first respondent, wherein the second respondent denied all the averments made by the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 contended that the suit is filed against the private party and not against Charitable Trust and no Trust is functioning at Kattuppakam. Only to drag on the proceedings, the present application is filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, after entering appearance through Advocate, did not file any written statement and he was set exparte. On an application filed by him, the said order was set aside. On 05.02.2014, the suit was posted in the special list. On that day, the petitioner did not appear. The Witness on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 were examined and suit was posted to 25.02.2014 for judgment. On application filed by the petitioner, exparte order was set aside and suit was posted for cross examination of witnesses 1 and 2. At this stage, the petitioner has come out with the present application to strike off the plaint under Section 151 of C.P.C. The application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C is not maintainable. The respondents 1 and 2 further contended that the plaint can be rejected only as per provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The petition filed by the petitioner does not come under the said order. The petitioner is not managing trustee of Charitable Trust and he is a land grabber. The patta was not cancelled as alleged by the petitioner. The present application is filed only to drag on the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the application.