ANURADHA BHASKAR vs P.VENKAT

2026:MHC:3658
1 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 02.09.2026
Pronounced on : 08.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 4690 of 2025 and CRP No. 4702 of 2025
and
CMP Nos. 23748, 26951 and 23769 of 2025,
CRP No. 4690 of 2025
1. Anuradha Bhaskar
2.B.Dhanvanth
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.Dr.P.Venkat
2.Dr.A.Panneer
3.M/s Ucon Pt Structural Systems Pvt.,
Ltd.,
Rep by its Director P.Jayakumar
S/o P.Parasuraman,
Having office at No.45, 5th Street,
Padmanaba Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 04.09.2025 made in IA.No. 01 of 2025 in
OS.No. 242 of 2024, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
2 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Chenthoori Pugazendhi
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Prem Auxilian Raj
for R1
Mr.Dhanaram Ramachandran
for R2 & R3
CRP.No.4702 of 2025
Dr.A.Panneer
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.Dr.P.Venkat
2.Anuradha Bhaskar
3.B.Dhanvanth
4.M/s.Ucon PT Structural Systems Pvt.
Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director P.Jayakumar
S/o.P.Parasuraman, Having office at
No.45, 5th St, Padmanaba Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside
the fair and decretal order dated 4.9.2025 made in IA.No.2/2025 in
OS.No.242/2024 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Dhanaram Ramachandran
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Prem Auxilian Raj
for R1
Mr.Chenthoori Pugazendhi
for R2 & R3
Mr.Jayasakthi for R4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
3 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 challenging the fair
and decreetal Order passed by the Court below in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025, in
OS.No.242 of 2024, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Madurantakam, dated 04.09.2025, dismissing the applications filed under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC, for rejection of plaint.
2.As against the Order passed rejecting the application filed under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, only a revision under Section 115 of CPC, is maintainable
and therefore this Court converted the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India into one under Section 115 of CPC, and heard
both sides.
st
3.The 1 respondent in both the petitions is the plaintiff who filed the suit
in OS.No.242 of 2024, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining
nd rd
the 2 and 3 defendants from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit
properties and for a declaration to declare the settlement deed dated 23.04.2004
st nd
executed by the 1 defendant in favour of the 2 defendant and the settlement
nd rd
deed dated 01.10.2009 executed by the 2 defendant in favour of the 3
defendant as null and void and non-est in the eye of law and not binding on the
plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
4 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
st
4.The 1 respondent/plaintiff sought for the above relief on the cause of
st
action that on 24.12.1959, the 1 defendant entered into a partition deed and on
st
04.04.1966 when the 1 defendant executed the registered exchange deed.
Thereafter on 24.08.1967, sale deed was executed in favour of one
Thaiyanayaki Ammal on 24.08.1967 and the said Thaiyanayaki Ammal
executed a Will dated 14.06.1982 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of
the plaintiff. Thereafter, the said Thaiyanayaki Ammal died on 16.11.1984.
st
Thereafter, the 1 defendant executed cancellation of the partition deed on
05.04.1999 and entered into a fresh partition deed on 12.04.1999 where the
st
plaintiff and others were also parties. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the 1
nd
defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2 defendant on
nd rd
23.04.2004 and the 2 defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the 3
defendant on 01.10.2009 and dealt with the suit properties without any right or
title and the same came to the knowledge of the plaintiff during the first week of
nd
June 2024 when the 2 defendant was attempting to sell the land in Survey
No.154/1. It is under these circumstances, the suit came to be filed before the
Court below.
st nd rd
5.The 1 defendant filed IA.No.2 of 2025 and the 2 and 3 defendants
filed IA.No.1 of 2025 for rejection of plaint mainly on the ground that on a
plain reading of the plaint, the relief sought for in the suit is hopelessly barred
by limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
5 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
6.The Court below on considering the grounds raised by the defendants
and the reply given by the plaintiff, came to a conclusion that the issue of
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the plaint clearly makes out a
cause of action and therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold.
Aggrieved by the said order, these Civil Revisions have been filed before this
Court by defendants 1 to 3.
7.The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioners is that the
two documents against which the plaintiff had sought for the relief of
declaration are registered documents and therefore constructive notice under
Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will come into play and the suit
ought to have been filed within three years from the date on which the right to
sue accrues under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not from the date
of knowledge which is provided only under Article 59 of the Limitation Act,
which will apply only for cancellation or setting aside an instrument or decree.
nd
Apart from that, the plaintiff was aware regarding the share to which the 2
defendant was entitled when the partition deed dated 12.04.1999 was entered
into and therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation even on this ground. It
is further contended that the plaintiff had conveniently concealed the Will dated
nd
27.04.1983, executed by Thaiyanayaki Ammal in favour of the 2 defendant
and this Will was acted upon and the defendants were in possession and
enjoyment of the property. According to the defendants, the present suit is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
6 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
st
abuse of process of Court since the suit was instituted only after the 1
defendant in the suit initiated proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, against
the plaintiff for not taking care of him.
st
8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1 respondent/plaintiff submitted
that the Court below has dealt with each and every ground that was raised on
the side of the defendants and the Court below came to a conclusion that based
on the averments made in the plaint, there was a cause of action and the issue
of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the objections raised on the
side of the defendants can be considered only after the completion of trial.
Accordingly, the learned counsel sought for the dismissal of these Civil
Revision Petitions.
9.When an application is filed for rejection of plaint on the ground that
the relief is barred by limitation, the Court has to see the averments that have
been made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint and assess
whether any fictional cause of action has been created only to overcome the bar
of limitation and in such a case, the Court can always reject the plaint in order
to ensure that such unsustainable suits are nipped in the bud. Useful reference
can be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust
and Others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayanraje Pratapsinh Maharaj
Bhonsle and Another reported in 2024 15 SCC 675 and Indian Evangelical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
7 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
Lutheran Church Trust Association .v. Sri Bala & Co . , reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 48 .
10.This Court must also bear in mind that every document that is
registered, will give rise to constructive notice from the date of registration and
therefore, the Court must assess the fact as to whether the plaintiff could have
discovered by due diligence the factum of registration of the documents in
which case deemed knowledge can be attributed to the plaintiff. Useful
reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Dilboo (dead) by
Lrs., v. Dhanraji (dead) and Others reported in 2000 7 SCC 702.
st
11.In the case in hand, the plaintiff is none other than the son of the 1
nd rd
defendant and the brother of the 2 defendant and the 3 defendant is the son of
nd
the 2 defendant. Even as per the short and long cause title in the suit, the
address of both the plaintiff as well as defendants 1 to 3 is mentioned as Old
No.23 New No.27, North Street, Sri Ram Nagar, Alwarpet, Teynampet,
st
Chennai-600 018. The plaintiff and the 1 defendant who are the son and father
are doctors by profession. Thus, everyone was living under the same roof.
12.In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that during the first week of June
th
2024, a representative of the 4 defendant approached the plaintiff and informed
that the Company is proposing to buy the land in Survey No.154/1 measuring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
8 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
nd
6.40 acres from the 2 defendant. The plaintiff claims that only thereafter he
came to know about the registered settlement deed dated 23.04.2004 executed
st nd
by the 1 defendant in favour of the 2 defendant and the registered settlement
nd rd
deed dated 01.10.2009 executed by the 2 defendant in favour of the 3
defendant. He thereafter applied for the certified copy of the documents after
getting the encumbrance certificate and filed the suit.
13.Based on the averments made in the plaint, this Court has to see
whether the plaintiff has attempted to create an illusion of cause of action by
pleading that he came to know about the two registered documents only in the
year 2024 and thereby he is attempting to overcome the bar of limitation, As
held by the Apex Court in various judgments, the Court must ensure that the
astute drafting of a plaint creating an illusory cause of action, must be nipped in
the bud without making the defendants undergo the ordeal of facing a trial.
14.Whenever a document is registered, the date of registration becomes
the date of deemed knowledge/constructive notice under Section 3 of the
Transfer of Property Act. Thus strictly speaking Article 58 of the Registration
Act, will come into play and the time will start ticking from the day the right to
sue first accrues which is the date of registration of the document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
9 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
15.Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which deals with cancellation or
setting aside an instrument or decree talks about three years from the date of
knowledge. Both these articles operate in difference fields.
16.As stated supra, all the parties are residing under the same roof and
therefore, the stand taken by the plaintiff as if he came to know about the
registered settlement deeds only in the year 2024, is too difficult to swallow. It
is a fact which the plaintiff could have easily discovered by due diligence and
therefore, deemed knowledge should be attributed to the plaintiff because the
plaintiff cannot be allowed to extend the period of limitation by merely claiming
that he had no knowledge till the year 2024.
17.If litigants are allowed to challenge registered documents and seek for
declaration by merely making an averment that it came to their knowledge only
at a later point of time, a suit can be filed by cleverly drafting the plaint and
create illusions of a cause of action and get over the period of limitation. This
Court can understand if such a plea is taken by a third party whose property is
dealt with without his knowledge and he comes to know about the same at a
later point of time. In the case in hand, the plaintiff is none other than the son of
st nd
the 1 defendant and the brother of the 2 defendant and therefore, the Court
has to necessarily attribute deemed knowledge to the plaintiff since the plaintiff
could have easily discovered the registration of those documents by due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
10 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
diligence.
18. This Court reminds itself of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another   reported in 1977 4 SCC 467,
where the Apex Court held that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is
manifestly clear that a clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, such plaint has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing.
19.This Court also takes into consideration the judgment of the Apex
Court in   Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal reported in 2017
13 SCC 174 , where it was held that on a reading of the averments of a plaint as
a whole, the suit is found to be barred by any law including the law of
limitation, the plaint has to be rejected so that a bogus litigation will end at the
earliest stage.
20.The above law was reiterated by the Apex Court in C.S. Ramaswamy
v. V.K. Senthil and Others  reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1330, where the
plaint was rejected on the ground that the relief is hopelessly barred by
limitation.
21.The plaint Document No.7 was pointed out on the side of the
petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 only to strengthen their stand that insofar as Survey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
11 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
Nos.150/3, 152/3 and 157/2, what was given to the plaintiff was only the
balance portion after taking into consideration the share that was already
nd
allotted in favour of the 2 defendant. The plaintiff is aware of the same even
as early as in the year 1999 and it is completely unbelievable that the plaintiff
was not aware about the execution of the settlement deeds dated 23.04.2004 by
st nd nd
the 1 defendant in favour of the 2 defendant and dated 01.10.2009 by the 2
rd
defendant in favour of the 3 defendant. This is only to strengthen the finding
that there is definitely a deemed knowledge attributable to the plaintiff.
22.The Court below while dealing with the above issues has
unnecessarily considered the relief of permanent injunction as independent to
the other reliefs seeking for declaration. The relief of permanent injunction was
nd rd
only to restrain the 2 and 3 defendants from alienating or encumbering the
nd rd
properties and such right accrues to the 2 and 3 defendants by virtue of the
settlement deeds. Therefore, all the reliefs must have been considered together
while dealing with the applications filed for rejection of plaint.
23.The Court below did not consider the fact that the plaint has to be read
meaningfully and as a whole and the Court must have seen that an illusory
cause of action was attempted to be created by astute and clever drafting of the
plaint. In view of the same, the relief which otherwise is hopelessly barred by
limitation, was projected in the plaint as if the suit has been filed within
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
12 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
limitation. The trajectory taken by the Court below by considering the relief of
permanent injunction as the main relief, is clearly erroneous and the Court
ought to have seen that the relief of permanent injunction is dependent upon the
relief of declaration that was sought for by the plaintiff. Thus, the Order passed
by the Court below clearly suffers from perversity warranting the interference of
this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115(1)(c) of CPC.
24.In the result, the fair and decreetal order in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025, in
OS.No.242 of 2024, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam, dated
04.09.2025, is hereby set aside and the plaint filed in OS.No.242 of 2024 stands
rejected .
25.Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.09.2026
Index:Yes
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
kp
..

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
13 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Madurantakam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3658
14 CRP Nos. 4690 and 4702 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
kp
Pre Delivery Common Order in
CRP No. 4690 of 2025
and
CRP No. 4702 of 2025
08.09.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:04 pm )