Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 07-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Petition filed by Shenoy Nagar Benefit Fund Ltd (executive director) seeking to set aside the order dated 22‑Feb‑2023 passed in I.A.No.1/2022 in O.S.No.4403/2007.
  • Respondents: Radha (wife of Saravanan), P. Sakunthala (wife of P. Peddiah), S. Muthu Raja (son of Senthur Pandy), S. Hemalatha (wife of V. Selvam).
  • Underlying suit O.S.No.4403 of 2007 seeks specific performance of an oral agreement, declaration that sale deeds dated 31‑May‑2003 and 29‑Mar‑2006 are null and void, and permanent injunction against the third defendant.
  • Sale deed dated 25‑Feb‑1996 was unregistered, executed by defendants 1 and 4; subsequent sale deeds dated 31‑May‑2003 (registered) and 29‑Mar‑2006 (registered) were also involved.
  • The petitioner (2nd defendant) previously filed I.A.No.15930/2009 (Order 13 Rule 3 CPC) to reject the unregistered deed; the trial court dismissed it on 02‑Sep‑2010.
  • The petitioner later filed CRP No.4477/2010, which the High Court disposed on 01‑Jul‑2019 directing that objections to the unregistered deed be raised at the time of marking as exhibit, citing Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) 3 MLJ 409.
  • In the present proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1/2022 (Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) alleging limitation bar and non‑compliance with Sections 17, 35, 49 of the Registration Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
  • The petition alleges an equitable mortgage dated 04‑Jan‑1994, loan of Rs.2,15,000, and sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000 on a non‑judicial stamp paper of Rs.10 for the 1996 deed.
  • The court examined the applicability of Sections 17, 35, 49 of the Registration Act, Section 35 of the Stamp Act, and the three‑year limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
  • The court referred to Supreme Court judgments in G.M. Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hedge (2024) 7 SCC 719, R. Valliammal v. K.P. Murali (2023), Fatehji & Co. v. L.M. Nagapal (2015), and P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan (2025 INSC 598).
  • It held that the limitation issue is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, and therefore cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC at the preliminary stage.
  • The court also noted that the plaintiff’s cause of action is disclosed, so Order VII Rule 11(a) is inapplicable.

Final Outcome

  • The Civil Revision Petition (CRP No.1318 of 2023) is dismissed.
  • The trial judge is directed to dispose of the 2007 suit expeditiously.
  • No costs are awarded.
  • The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Topics: Civil Procedure, Property Law