Saroja Ammal vs Annadurai

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and she filed I.A.No.2011/2009 in O.S.No.123/2004, on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, praying for leave to file reply statement to the written statement filed by the first defendant, and the said application after contest, came to be dismissed by the said Court vide fair and decretal orders dated 30.11.2009, and aggrieved by the same, has filed this revision.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to one Ponnukannu Padayachi, son of Adeenamozhi Padayachi, and he has executed a settlement deed dated 2.3.1937, in favour of Kathayee Ammal and others, and it was also acted upon. The plaintiff would further contend that Ponnukannu Padayachi died about 65 years ago and after his demise, his legatees had taken possession of the properties, which are the subject matter of the suit, and were in possession and enjoyment of the same and the husband of the plaintiff viz. Venkatakrishnan, is a close relative of Ponnukannu Padayachi and therefore, Muthukumaraswamy Padayachi, one of the legatees, had entrusted custody of the suit property in his favour to cultivate the same on his behalf and accordingly, the husband of the plaintiff was in possession for the past 35 years. The plaintiff would further contend that on 23.9.2002, Muthukumaraswamy Padayachi sold the entire extent including the suit property, in her favour by means of a registered sale deed and by virtue of the same, she is entitled to have a decree for declaration and recovery of possession.

The first defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant, denying the averments made in the plaint, and would further contend that though right in personam was created by the settlement deed, the right of possession and enjoyment was postponed on account of the demise of Ponnukannu Padayachi and as per the settlement deed, four settles are entitled to western 0.54 cents and they took possession after the demise of Ponnukannu Padayachi, and they are in possession and in the partition, the entire 54 cents were allotted to Rathinambai and she became the owner of the entire 87 cents in Survey No.287/2. The first defendant denied the averments that Venkatakrishnan is a close relative of Ponnukannu Padayachi and that Muthukumaraswamy sold the property in favour of the plaintiff by means of registered sale deed dated 23.9.2002, and would further contend that the said sale deed is not valid since Muthukumaraswamy was not the sole legatee and he was not entitled to the entire property and therefore, he has no right or title or possession to convey the property in favour of the plaintiff.

Thereafter, the plaintiff came forward to file I.A.No.2011/2009 u/s 151 of Cr.P.C. praying for leave to file reply statement, by stating that that she has to clarify certain points raised in the written statement.

The second defendant has filed her counter, which was adopted by the respondents 3 to 5, wherein, they contended that in the reply statement, the plaintiff has taken inconsistent pleas and therefore, leave for filing the reply statement cannot be granted and prayed for dismissal of the application.

The Court of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, on going through the materials, found that as a plaintiff, she is not entitled to take inconsistent pleas and by placing reliance upon the judgments reported in Murthi Gounder Vs. Karuppanna Gounder, and 1999 L.W. 708 (MUTHIAH MUDALIAR AND OTHERS V. DHANDAPANI MUDALIAR), has dismissed the application vide fair and decretal orders dated 30.11.2009, and aggrieved by the same, this revision is preferred by the plaintiff.

Mr.N.Rajavadivelu, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, would contend that only to clarify certain points, which are raised in the written statement, the plaintiff seeks the leave of the Court to file reply statement and it would enable her to substantiate her case.

Per contra, Ms.Saritha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5, would submit that the lower Court, on a proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law, has dismissed the application and in the absence of any infirmity, the findings given by the lower Court, cannot be interfered with and prays for dismissal of this revision.

This Court upon considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials available on record in the form of typed-set of documents, is of the view that the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5, merit acceptance for the following reasons.

As pointed out in the earlier paragraph, the plaintiff in paragraphs III and IV of the plaint, contended among other things, that Muthukumaraswamy Padayachi, one of the legatees, had sold the entire extent including the suit property, in favour of the plaintiff by means of registered sale deed on 23.9.2002. The said fact was stoutly denied by the first defendant in the written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the application seeking leave of the Court to file a reply statement, wherein, she took a stand that she has purchased the properties from Muthukumaraswamy Padayachi and his sons and Vathilingam and his sons and therefore, she alone has title to the suit property and other properties comprised in the sale deed. The said stand is not in consonance with the stand taken by the plaintiff in her plaint, for the reason that according to the plaint averments, Muthukumaraswamy Padayachi alone had sold the entire extent including the suit property. It is well settled position of law that the defendant is entitled to take a contrary plea, but not the plaintiff as the plaintiff has to succeed or perish on his/her own pleadings. The trial Court has properly appreciated the factual aspect and by placing reliance upon two decisions, has rightly found that the application filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to file reply statement, deserves dismissal and dismissed the same.

This Court on an independent application of mind to the entire materials placed before it, is of the view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the lower Court for dismissing the application and finds no merit in this revision.

In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 2004, the Court of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, is directed to give utmost preference for early disposal of the suit.