Case Note & Summary
The Civil Revision Petition was filed by the Defendant in O.S. No.35 of 2022 pending before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur, seeking to strike off the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The Plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction and a declaration that the Cancellation Deed dated October 04, 2017 (Document No.2113 of 2017) executed by them in favor of the Defendant was null and void. According to the Plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belonged to Meenakshi Ammal and Selvaraj, who executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of the second plaintiff, Arumugam. The second plaintiff, as Power of Attorney holder, sold the properties to the first plaintiff, Manivannan, on February 20, 1994. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant, with police influence, forcibly obtained the Cancellation Deed from them on October 04, 2017, and subsequently attempted to interfere with their possession on June 24, 2020 and July 25, 2020. The Defendant contended that the suit properties were allotted to him in a family partition in 1995 and that he was in possession, with revenue records standing in his name. The Defendant argued that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by law, as the Plaintiffs had no title and the cancellation deed was valid. The Court examined the plaint allegations and found that they disclosed a cause of action and raised triable issues, including the validity of the cancellation deed and the question of possession. The Court held that the power under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or where the plaint is manifestly vexatious. Since the plaint raised triable issues, the petition to strike off the plaint was dismissed. The Court also noted that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare a cancellation deed as null and void if it is proved to have been obtained by coercion or fraud. The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Striking off Plaint - Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The Court held that the power under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or where the plaint is manifestly vexatious or without any cause of action. The plaint disclosed a cause of action and raised triable issues regarding the validity of the cancellation deed and possession. Hence, the petition to strike off the plaint was dismissed. (Paras 6-10) B) Transfer of Property - Cancellation Deed - Validity - The Plaintiffs alleged that the cancellation deed dated October 04, 2017 was obtained by the Defendant through coercion and police influence. The Court noted that such allegations raise a triable issue and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the cancellation deed as null and void if proved. (Paras 3-5) C) Power of Attorney - Sale by Power of Attorney Holder - The Plaintiffs claimed that the second plaintiff, as Power of Attorney holder, sold the suit properties to the first plaintiff on February 20, 1994. The Court observed that a Power of Attorney holder can execute a sale deed on behalf of the principal, and such a transaction is valid unless challenged on specific grounds. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in O.S. No.35 of 2022 should be struck off under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action and is barred by law.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Plaint cannot be struck off under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- 1950 if the plaint discloses a cause of action and raises triable issues
- Power of Attorney holder can execute sale deed
- Cancellation deed executed under coercion is voidable
- Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare a cancellation deed as null and void
