C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 C.M.P.No.5112 of 2025 1.S.Ganesan 2.M.Senthilkumar 3.Settu 4.Munusamy ...Petitioners Vs 1.Rangammal 2.Gopu 3.Dhanalakshmi 4.Muthulakshmi 5.Uma Devi 6.Veeramani 7.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Palacode. 8.The District Collector District Collector office Dharmapuri. ...Respondents 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, dated 08.03.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2022. For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.S.Shriram Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathish for R7 & R8 Government Advocate ORDER Challenging the dismissal of their petition for rejecting the plaint the defendants 1 to 4 have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2.The facts which have led to the filing of this revision is herein below set out:- The respondents 1 to 6 herein had filed O.S.No.7 of 2022 seeking the following reliefs:- 1)1. 2 gpujpthjpfs; thjpfsplk; nkhrtpjkhf Vw;gLj;jpf; bfhz;l fpua gj;jpuk; vz; 885-2019 dtd 20/03/2019 uj;J bra;J jPh;g;g[k;. jPh;g;ghiza[k; tH';fplt[k;/ 2)1. 2 gpujpthjpfs; thjpfsplk; nkhrtpjkhf Vw;gLj;jpf; bfhz;l fpua gj;jpuk; vz; 886-2019 dtd 20/03/2019 uj;J bra;J jPh;g;g[k;. jPh;g;ghiza[k; tH';fplt[k;/ 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 3)1. 2 gpujpthjpfs; thjpfsplk; nkhrtpjkhf Vw;gLj;jpf; bfhz;l fpua gj;jpuk; vz; 1603-2019 dtd 30/05/2019 uj;J bra;J jPh;g;g[k;. jPh;g;ghiza[k; tH';fplt[k;/ 4)1. 2 gpujpthjpfs; 3. 4 gpujpthjpfspd; bgaupy; Vw;gLj;jpf bfhLj;j bghJ mjpfhu Mtz vz; 333[-2021 dtd 01.02.2021 bry;yj;jf;fjy;y (Null and Void Document) vd tpsk;g[if bra;J jPh;g;g[k;. jPh;g;ghiza[k; tH';fplt[k;/ 5) 1 Kjy; 4 gpujpthjpfs;. 3 k; egUf;F jhth brhj;Jf;fis bghWj;J 5k; gpujpthjp mYtyfj;jpy; tpw;gidnah my;yJ vj;jifa tpy;y';f tpf;fpua guhjPd';fs; bra;af;TlhJ vd xU rh!;tj ,d;bIf;rd; tH';fplt[k; 6)jhth bryt[j; bjhif thjpfSf;F gpujthjpfshy; fpilf;Fk; goa[k; 7),d;Dk; ,f;nfhh;l;lhuth;fs; a[f;jkha[k;. epahakha[k; njhd;Wk; ,ju ghpfhu';fs; thjpf;F nfhh;l;lhuth;fs; mspj;J cj;jput[ gpwg;gpf;f ntZkha; thjp kpft[k; tzf;fKld; gpuhj;jpf;fpwhh;/ 3.The respondents have filed the above suit stating that they they had approached the petitioners 1 to 4 seeking a loan and they have fraudulently got executed a sale deed which the respondents had believed to be a mortgage deed. The respondents would further submit that the document that they had intended to execute was only a mortgage deed and this fact is proved, since possession of the property continues to be with them. The revenue records still continue to remain in their name. It was only on 01.10.2021 when the second respondent had perused the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit property that they had come to know about fraud has been played upon them. Therefore, they have instituted the above suit stated supra. 4.After entering appearance in the above suit, the petitioners 1 to 4 had come forward to file an application for rejecting the plaint in I.A.No.4 of 2023. The grounds on which the rejection was sought for are as follows:- a)Cause of action of the sale deed has been admitted by the plaintiffs. b)The respondents have signed the document with open eyes and they cannot now contend that they were not aware that the document that they had executed was a sale deed. c)The possession is with the petitioners. d)The revenue records have been mutated in their name. e)The petitioners have been dealing with the property as absolute owners. There is no cause of action as the only plea made by the respondents is that they had inadvertently executed the sale deed thinking that the same was mortgage deed. Since the plaint does not disclose a cause of action the suit itself is not maintainable. Therefore, they sought 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 for its rejection. 5.The respondents had filed a counter statement refusing the said allegations and reiterating the fact that they had approached the petitioners 1 and 2 for extending a loan. One Muruganantham had taken them to the petitioners 1 to 4. Further the mere reading of the plaint would clearly demonstrate how the respondents had made out a cause of action for filing the suit. The respondents have been the victim of cheating, fraud and mis-representation. Immediately on coming to know about the fraud, the respondents have come forward to file the suit. The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, after hearing the arguments and perusing the records dismissed the application I.A.No.4 of 2023. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 6.Heard Mr.S.M.S.Shriram Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 7.The main argument that has been advanced is the statement of the petitioners wherein the execution of the document has been admitted by the respondents and having executed the document they cannot now turn 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 around and state that they had executed a document which they presumed was a mortgage deed. Such defence cannot be taken after the plaintiffs have signed the documents. 8.It has been time and again held that when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C the averments in the plaint and the documents filed in support have only got to be examined. An application for rejection of the plaint can be made where it does not disclose a cause of action. The reading of the plaint as a whole clearly shows that the respondents have come forward to seek various declarations immediately on coming to know about the fact that the document that they had executed was a sale deed. The respondents have admitted the signature. However, with the caveat that they had executed the document presuming the same to be a mortgage deed and not the sale deed. The respondents would further submit that they have received only a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. Even as per the guideline value the property was worth a sum of Rs.22,00,000/-. The respondents had extensively pleaded that they had entered into the transaction only for obtaining a loan. The cause of action has to ultimately to be proved by the plaintiffs and this can be done only at the stage of trial. At the threshold the petitioners 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 cannot seek to non-suit the plaintiffs by rejecting their plaint. The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, has considered the above facts and rejected the application. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri. 9.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.03.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ep To The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 P.T.ASHA , J, ep C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 C.M.P.No.5112 of 2025 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.866 of 2025 04.03.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis