TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty from her own funds can be decided only after conclusion of Trial by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the petitioner and 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has made averments in the plaint that the petitioner is trying to alienate the suit property to defeat the benefits of respondents 2 and 3 and also stated that the 1st respondent issued notice dated 29.09.2014 to the 4th respondent not to receive and register any document presented by the petitioner. These averments discloses cause of action. It is well settled that while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the Court has to take into account only the averments in the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint. The averments in the written statement, affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11 or documents relied on by the defendants in the written statement cannot be taken into account at the stage of considering I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. - C.R.P. (PD) No. 368 of 2017 and C.M.P. No. 1648 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2021 - V.M. Velumani, J. For the Appellant : L. Mur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of action. The 1st respondent has no locus standi to file the suit and prayed for rejection of plaint. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit in the said I.A. and contended that he is a life member of Indian Medical Association (IMA), Tamil Nadu State branch. The layout was formed in the name of Doctor's Colony and only life members of Indian Medical Association (IMA) can buy the plot either in his name or in his spouse name. The 1st respondent purchased the suit property in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of the children i.e., respondents 2 3 out of his own funds. The 1st respondent further stated that the transaction is benami transaction and the 1st respondent will prove the same by letting in evidence during Trial. The present suit has triable issue and the suit is maintainable as the 1st respondent has mentioned the cause of action in the plaint and plaint cannot be rejected and prayed for dismissal of the I.A. No. 846 of 2015. 4. The learned Judge considering the averments in the plaint, affidavit filed in support of the above application and counter affidavit, dismissed the I.A., holding that whether the suit property was purchased by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws: ...7. ... Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of (T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal) reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467, as stated above, and as the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 7. Per contra, Mr. P.T. Perumal, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent filed written arguments and submitted that in the plaint, the 1st respondent has stated that the suit property was purchased by him out of his own funds and suit property can be purchased only by life members of Indian Medical Association (IMA) in his name or in his spouse name. The 1st respondent also made averments in the plaint that the suit property was purchased in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of their children, the respondents 2 and 3. The 1st respondent has filed the suit when the petitioner tried to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st respondent got married on 31.10.1988 and he purchased the suit property in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of their children, the respondents 2 and 3. Due to dispute, the marriage between the petitioner and 1st respondent was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 11.09.2014 and their children, the respondents 2 and 3 are with the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is looking after the respondents 2 and 3 and maintaining them. The petitioner is trying to alienate the suit property, contrary to the intention of buying the suit property in her name and is trying to defeat the benefits of respondents 2 and 3 by alienating the suit property to the third party. 11. Contrary to the above contention, it is the case of the petitioner that 1st respondent, without seeking declaration of title in the suit, cannot maintain the present suit and suit does not disclose cause of action. When the title is disputed, the 1st respondent has no locus standi to maintain the present suit and he has no right to file the suit. 12. From the above materials it is seen that it is the contention of the 1st respondent that suit property was purchased for the benefit of the children, the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
