CRP/4779/2023 of M.ARUL Vs VASANTHAN on 24 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior counsel for Mr.S.Sudarshan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.R.Ramesh Raja, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel would firstly states that this is a classic case of fraud which has been played upon a settlee under a registered Settlement Deed, executed by the settlee’s father Mr.Marrappan. After the execution of an irrevocable settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, the father has, behind the back of the petitioner, proceeded to enter into invalid agreements of sale, which have been attempted before the civil court to be specifically performed. The first attempt made by the father of the petitioner, in collusion was with one Shanmugam, ended in failure, with the trial court finding that the said Shanmugam was not a bonafide purchaser, who was not even ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The said suit filed for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale entered into between the father of the petitioner and the Shanmugam came to be dismissed. Mr.Srinath Sridevan further pointed out that in the said suit, PW-3 , one Vasanthan has been examined, as a witness to the said agreement of sale between the petitioner’s father Marappan and the said Shanmugam and he has spoken about the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of Shanmugam. However, surprisingly and to the shock of the Petitioner, after the dismissal of the suit filed for specific performance by Shanmugam, a fresh suit came to be filed by the said PW 3, Vasanthan himself, as if he had an agreement of sale with the father of the petitioner, however suppressing the factum of the earlier suit having been filed and dismissed. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not a party to both the suits and the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale between Vasanthan and the father of the Petitioner came to be decreed exparte. It is in the said suit filed by the said Vasanthan that the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC to invalidate the decree. In and by the impugned docket order, the trial court has dismissed the application as not maintainable under Section 151 of CPC, however reserving liberty to the Petitioner to work out his right independently, in a manner known to law. The Learned Senior Counsel would also bring to my notice that there are two suits now pending - one in O.S.No.110 of 2015, renumbered as O.S.No.47 of 2023 before the District Munsif Court, Karimangalam. The said suit is filed challenging the unilateral revocation of the settlement deed in favour of the Petitioner. Admittedly the said suit is pending and the petitioner also enjoys an interim injunction in his favour restraining encumbrance /alienation of the property.

3. Mr.Srinath Sridevan would also fairly bring to my notice that another suit in O.S.No.101 of 2018 has been filed, to declare the sale deed executed by the court, in furtherance of the exparte decree for specific performance. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that unless the decree passed in the suit is challenged or set aside, that is likely to be put against the petitioner in O.S.No. 101 of 2018 and that necessitated the filing of the application in the present impugned proceedings in the interlocutory application in the suit filed by Vasanthan against the Father of the Petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent would however state that even the trail court while finding that the section 151 application is not maintainable, has given appropriate liberty to the petitioner to file an independent suit to workout his grievances, in a manner known to law. He would therefore state that in view of the pendency of the two suits, no serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side.

6. I find force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Srinath Sridevan that as long as the decree is not challenged and set aside, it may come in the way of the petitioner in succeeding even in O.S.No.101 of 2018, which is filed only challenging the consequential sale deed executed by the Court in favour of Vasanthan, the Plaintiff in the second suit for specific performance.

7. In the light of the foregoing discussions and also noticing that the said Vasanthan himself deposed in an earlier suit for specific performance and did not choose to disclose any agreement of sale in his favour and proceeded to file a suit for the specific performance after the dismissal of earlier suit for specific performance filed by Shanmugam, where admittedly the plaintiff in the subsequent suit has deposed as PW 3 and there is a clear suppression of the earlier suit proceedings also in his suit for specific performance, I find that the petitioner cannot be pushed to a corner and technical objections be put against the petitioner. At the same time, insofar as the impugned order to challenge the exparte decree, admittedly the petitioner is not a defendant in the said suit and his application, that too, filed under Section 151 CPC to recall and set aside exparte decree, is certainly not maintainable. It is only a judgement in personam and therefore I do not see how the petitioner can file an application under

Section 151 CPC, seeking to set aside the exparte decree. However today, admittedly the petitioner has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.101 of 2018 challenging the sale deed executed by the court pursuant to the exparte decree granted in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.244 of 2016 .

8. In the light of the above, I find that though the petitioner may have a good case on merits, however he has approached the wrong forum by way of an incorrect application. In view of the above, I am inclined to uphold the order passed by the learned trail Court, however granting liberty to the petitioner to seek amendment of the reliefs sought for in O.S.No.101 of 2018, now renumbered as O.S.No.375 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kariamangalam. Any such application for amendment seeking a relief to challenge the decree in O.S.No.244 of 2016 shall not be opposed by the respondents. The Trail Court shall allow the amendment application and shall permit the respondents to file an additional written statement and in the interest of the justice and also the interest of both parties it would be desirable to have both suits in O.S.No. 375 of 2023 and O.S.No.110 of 2015, renumbered as O.S.No.47 or 2023 to be jointly tried and disposed of. Infact both the suits have pending before the very same court as well.

9. The learned Senior Counsel states as on date no execution proceedings are filed. However in the event of there being any Execution Petition filed for the recovery of possession, it is needless to state that in the event, there is any threat to the possession of the revision petitioner, it shall always be open to petitioner to obstruct to the delivery either by filing an application under order XXI Rule 58 of Civil Procedure Code or under order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code, as he may be advised.

10. In view of the above, this civil revision petition is disposed of with the above directions viz., permitting the petitioner to amend the relief in O.S.No.375 of 2023 to include a relief challenging the decree in O.S.No.244 of 2016 and on such amendment being carried out and additional pleadings are complete and any additional issues being framed, both the suits viz., O.S.No.47 of 2023 and O.S.No.375 of 2023 shall be jointly tried and disposed of by the Principal District Munsif, Karimangalam within a period of six months. No costs. 24.08.2026 sr/rsm Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order To The District Munsif Court, Kariyamangalam

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 4779 of 2023 24.08.2026