P.GUNASEKAR vs ANANTH

CRP.No.50 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.50 of 2024
& CMP.No.181 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA012167232023}
P.Gunasekar
S/o.Pandari @ Pandarinathan,
No.72, Cuddalure Road,
Madhahadipattupalayam
Village, Pondicherry District.
...Petitioner
Vs
Ananth
1.
S/o.Jayaraman Padayachi,
No.104, Mariammankoil Village,
Thiruvamur Post, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Union of India
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Union Territory of Puducherry.
3. The District Registrar
Department of Registration,
Saram, Puducherry.
4. The Sub Registrar
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:45 pm )

CRP.No.50 of 2024
Thirukanur, Puducherry.
5. Mohanraj,
S/o.Jayaraman Padayachi,
No.104, Mariammankoil Street,
Periya Elathampatti Village,
Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India
against the fair and decretal order dated 17.10.2023 passed in
I.A.No.812 of 2022 in O.S.No.216 of 2019 on the file of the Third
Additional District Court, Puducherry District.
For Petitioner: Mr.C.Parthiban
For Respondents: Mr.T.M.Naveen for R1
Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, GA (P)
for R2 to R4
R5 – Served & No appearance
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
The Constitution of India against the order dated 17.10.2023 passed
in I.A.No.812 of 2022 in O.S.No.216 of 2019 on the file of the Third
Additional District Court, Puducherry District (for short, the Court
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:45 pm )

CRP.No.50 of 2024
below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/D5 seeking to
reject the plaint, came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/D5, the learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff and the learned
Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for respondents 2 to
4/D1 to D3.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available
on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit
seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the cancellation deed
dated 11.7.2018 as null and void, to declare that the sale deed
dated 02.7.2018 is liable to be registered and to direct the Sub-
Registrar, Thirukanur to register the said sale deed dated
02.7.2018.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:45 pm )

CRP.No.50 of 2024
5. The petitioner/D5 is the owner of the suit property and he
filed the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to reject the plaint on the ground
that there was no cause of action for filing the said suit, that the
said suit was barred by law and that the relief, as sought for by the
first respondent/plaintiff, was not sustainable.
6. The Court below dismissed the said application by the
impugned order on the ground that the plaint disclosed the cause of
action and that the relief sought for by the first respondent/plaintiff
was not barred by law. Aggrieved by that, the above revision has
been filed before this Court.
7. A careful reading of the averments made in the plaint and
the documents filed along with the plaint would show that the first
respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the fifth
respondent/D4, who was said to be the power of attorney agent of
the petitioner/D5 to purchase the suit property; that the total sale
consideration was fixed at Rs.10.75 lakhs; that as per the plaint
averments, the fifth respondent/D4, in his capacity as the power
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:45 pm )

CRP.No.50 of 2024
agent, received a total sum of Rs.5,75,000/- from the first
respondent/plaintiff; that pursuant to that, a sale deed was also
prepared and presented before the Sub-Registrar, Thirukanur; that
the first respondent/plaintiff was willing to pay the balance sale
consideration; that the Sub-Registrar, Thirukanur insisted for
production of the life certificate of the principal; and that thereafter,
the power of attorney document came to be cancelled by the
petitioner/D5 on 11.7.2018. It was under those circumstances, the
first respondent/plaintiff sought for various reliefs.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the substantive relief
can be given to the first respondent/plaintiff only if the relief of
specific performance is sought for since the power of attorney has
already been cancelled by the petitioner/D5. Therefore, ultimately, if
the first respondent/plaintiff is able to make out of a case, it is only
the petitioner/D5, who has to execute the sale deed in favour of the
first respondent/plaintiff. The fifth respondent/D4 remained ex parte
and prima facie, the first respondent/plaintiff has been caught in a
cross fire between defendants 4 and 5.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:45 pm )

CRP.No.50 of 2024
9. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of
granting liberty to the first respondent/plaintiff to seek for the relief
of specific performance before the Court below and the same shall
be allowed and the Court below shall proceed further with the suit in
O.S.NO.216 of 2019 on its own merits and in accordance with law.
The Third Additional District Court, Puducherry is directed to dispose
of O.S.No.216 of 2019 within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the
connected CMP is closed.
04-11-2026
To
The Third Additional District Court,
Puducherry District
RS
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:45 pm )

CRP.No.50 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
CRP.No.50 of 2024&
CMP.No.181 of 2024
04-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:45 pm )