IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 21010 OF 2017 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.16131 OF 2017]

L. NANDAKUMAR & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

R.P. KRISHNAMMACHARI & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. In O.S. No.123 of 2002 the suit property was declared to be belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family of which one Velu was the Karta. Velu had two sons Loganathan and Duraikannu in whom the administration

of the estate had devolved upon the death of Velu. It appears that before his death the second son of Velu i.e. Duraikannu had sold 2.07 acres of land to the first respondent. Challenging the said sale the sons of Loganathan (the other son of Velu) along with others had instituted O.S. No.200 of 2014. The defendants in the suit (i.e. O.S. No.200 of 2014) had filed an application under Order VII rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC" for short) for rejection of the plaint which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. In revision, the High Court by the impugned order has reversed the view taken by the learned trial Court and has allowed the application under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC rejecting the plaint. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

4. The High Court appears to have entered into the merits of the controversy between the parties in considering the prayer for rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC. Not only the question of limitation which is a mixed question of law and fact was gone into even the fact that the sale deed executed by Duraikannu was signed by Loganathan and the period of possession of the property of the defendants was also considered to decide the application under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC. This was not permissible. Time and again, it has been stressed that the sole criteria to determine the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC is the plaint averments and not what is projected by the defendants in the suit.

5. Consequently and in the light of the above, we allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the proceedings in the suit (i.e. O.S. No.200 of 2014) be continued from the stage it was interdicted.

....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

...................,J. (R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 08, 2017 ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 16131/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07-03-2017 IN CRPPD NO. 2579/2016 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS)

L. NANDAKUMAR & ORS. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

R.P. KRISHNAMMACHARI & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) (FOR ADMISSION)

Date : 08-12-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.

Mr. B. Karuna Karan, Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Ms. Shruti Iyer, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv.

Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Aravindh S., AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

order.

[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]

AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]