IMPORTANT CASE LAWS - Madras High Court

(2011) 3 MLJ 21
M.V. Jayavelu
vs
E. Umapathy
Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Suit for specific performance –
Plaint does not disclose any cause of action for filing suit for specific performance – Plaint liable to be rejected.
Held:
When the plaint proceeded on the basis that there was an agreement of sale dated 19.4.2000 and the plaintiff is
entitled to specific performance of the contract, in the absence of proof of any such agreement of sale dated 19.4.2000, it
can be held that the plaint has not disclosed any cause of action.
The plaintiff has not produced any document to prove that there was an agreement of sale between the parties.
Further, the alternative prayer is also clearly barred by limitation as admittedly the amount was paid in the year 2000 and in
the year 2008, the same cannot be recovered. It may be that the plaintiff is entitled to be in possession of the property till
the defendants refund the amount but that is not a ground to maintain the present suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore,
according to the Court, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for filing a suit for specific performance and the claim
for refund of 2,000/- is also barred by limitation. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
2011 (3) CTC 31
Aravindharaj Adhithan
vs
R. Perumal
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 – Termination of Tenancy – Termination Notice
issued to vacate premises within 10 days – Suit filed long after statutory period of 15 days – Even if Notice was
treated as defective, it got cured by filing of Suit after 15 days statutory period – Concurrent finding as to eviction,
upheld.
Facts:
Land issued notice terminating tenancy. Notice was issued granting 10 days for vacating premises. Landlord filed
Suit after the statutory period of 15 days. Tenant contended that the notice was defective. Trial Court as well as Appellate
Court ordered eviction as against which Tenant preferred Second Appeal. The Hon’ble High Court concurred with the
findings and dismissed the Second Appeal with following observation.
Held:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, at this juncture, appropriately and appositely, correctly and
convincingly would place reliance on the amended Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and submit that even though
in the termination notice only 10 days’ time was granted for the Defendant to vacate the premises, in fact, the Suit was filed
long after the statutory period of 15 days, so to say, the notice was admittedly received on 3.2.2006 and the Plaint was
presented only on 21.2.2006 and in such a case, only after a lapse of statutory 15 days’ time as contemplated under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Suit was instituted and even if the notice was treated as a defective one, it got cured
by virtue of the Suit itself having been filed after 15 days as contemplated under Section 106 of the T.P. Act.
13