N.C.Perumal, v. Venkatachalam,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and CMP.Nos.28584 of 20 N.C.Perumal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Venkatachalam

2. V.Janardhanan

3. V.Sukumaran

4. The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem, Salem District.

5. The District Registrar, Office at Collectorate, Salem, Salem District.

6. The Tahsildar, Office at Taluk Office, Mettur, Salem District. 1/7

7. The Sub Registrar, Tharamangalam Sub Registrar Office, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

8. The Village Administration Office, Periyasoragai Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. (The respondents 2 to 8 are not necessary parties in the present Revision and they are given up)

...Respondents

PRAYER :Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to strike off the plaint filed in O.S.No.167 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mani For Respondent : Mr. V.Ramesh for R4 to R8 Government Advocate

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.167 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur. 2.The 1 st respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that sale deed 2/7

dated 10.08.2023 executed by defendants 1 and 2/respondents 2 and 3 herein in favour of 3 rd defendant/petitioner herein was null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged possession.

3. The 1 st respondent/plaintiff claims that he is a cultivating tenant. The original owners of the property namely respondents 2 and 3, executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner on 10.08.2023 when 1 st respondent was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was further stated that physical possession was not handed over to the petitioner and hence, sale deed was not valid and not binding on the 1 st respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming the 1 st respondent is a cultivating tenant, there is no bar for the vendors of the petitioner from conveying the suit property and therefore, the cause of action averred in the plaint is illusory one and hence, the plaint filed by the 1 st 3/7

respondent shall be striked off from the file.

5. If the cause of action averred in the plaint is illusory one, the petitioner has effective remedy by seeking rejection of the plaint by filing application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. When the petitioner has effective remedy before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of Constitution of India in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Paripalan Shabha Vs., Tuticorin Educational Society, reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019.

6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

4/7

19.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No nr To 1.District Munsif Court, Mettur.

2. The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem, Salem District.

3. The District Registrar, Office at Collectorate, Salem, Salem District.

4. The Tahsildar, Office at Taluk Office, Mettur, Salem District.

5. The Sub Registrar, Tharamangalam Sub Registrar Office, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

6. The Village Administration Office, Periyasoragai Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 5/7

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

nr and CMP.Nos.28584 of 2 6/7

19.11.2025 7/7