(Prayer Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 08.06.2026 made in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in OS No. 80 of 2023 by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in IA No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.80 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur, dated 08.06.2024, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., seeking for the rejection of plaint, came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court has also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.80 of 2023 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. When the suit was pending, the petitioner who was the defendant filed IA No.2 of 2024 for rejection of plaint on the ground that the Sale Deed that was relied upon by the plaintiff was already cancelled and there was already an existing Sale Deed in the name of the defendant and there is a clear cloud over the title of the plaintiff and in spite of the same, the plaintiff sought for the relief of permanent injunction without seeking for the relief of declaration of title. Therefore, according to the petitioner/defendant, the suit itself is not maintainable and hence, sought for rejection of plaint.

4. The Court below by order dated 08.06.2026, dismissed the application on the ground that as per the pleadings made in the plaint, the suit is maintainable and the defence taken by the petitioner cannot be a ground to reject the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 18.11.1991. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was relying upon the Sale Deed dated 16.10.2018 and this Sale Deed came to be cancelled by the District Registrar (North Chennai) in exercise of the powers under Section 77-A of the Registration Act. The property in question is a vacant property and therefore, possession runs with the title. While so, the plaintiff without seeking for the relief of declaration of title has only sought for the relief of permanent injunction which is not sustainable. The learned counsel in order to substantiate her submission, relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs. And Others reported in 2008 4 SCC 594.

6. When the Court deals with an application seeking for rejection of plaint, the Court has to merely go by the averments made in the plaint and in some cases, the documents that are filed along with the plaint. According to the plaintiff, cancellation of the Sale Deed that stood in the name of the plaintiff is non-est, since such cancellation had taken place in exercise of the powers under Section 77-A of the Registration Act and this provision has been struck off as unconstitutional by the High Court and therefore, the Sale Deed that stood in the name of the plaintiff remains intact. In view of the same, the plaintiff has only sought for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property.

7. The ground raised on the side of the petitioner is that the petitioner already owns the property by virtue of an earlier Sale Deed and that the plaintiff has not sought cancellation of the same and the plaintiff has not sought for declaration of title in view of the cloud over title. Therefore, the plaint has to be rejected.

8. As stated supra, the Court has to only look at the plaint from the angle in which the plaintiff has projected his case. The plaintiff is disregarding the title of the defendant and is also disregarding the cancellation of the document by the District Registrar in exercise of power under Section 77A of the Registration Act. The plaintiff therefore seeks only for the relief of permanent injunction. How far the plaintiff can sustain the suit in such a scenario has to be decided only in the course of trial.

9. The judgment that was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case, since that judgment did not arise out of an application for rejection of plaint and the judgement only reiterates the settled position that wherever there is a cloud over title, the plaintiff has to necessarily seek for the relief of declaration of title. This judgment does not help the case of the petitioner.

10. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the Court below. It is always left open to the petitioner to raise the same ground as defense and it will be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law by the Court below while deciding the suit. The order passed in the present Civil Revision Petition will not have any bearing when the Court ultimately decides the main case.

11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.