IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION

JUDGE, MADURAI
O.S.No. of 2023

K.Arumugam …. Plaintiff

Vs
Senthilkumar …. Defendant

PLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1

OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
I. Address of Plaintiff:
K.Arumugam, Son of Krishnaservai, Hindu aged about 90
years and residing at No.68/1, Bharathiyar Nagar 1 st street, Kasi
Kadai Backside, Sokkangulam, Madurai District.

II. Address of Defendant:

A.Senthikumar, Son of Arumugam, Hindu aged about
years and residing at No.12/114, Kamatchi Nagar, Vilangudi,
Madurai District.

The address of the defendants for service of all summons

and process of this Honorable Court is the same as stated above.

III. Plaintiff begs to submit as follows:-

1. The suit property more fully described in the

schedule to this plaint is situating within the Vilangudi, Madurai
North, Madurai, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
2. The plaintiff submits that the suit property survey
Door No. 12/114 an extent of 14 cents (6104 Sq.Mt) Vilangudi
Village, Madurai North, Madurai, originally belonged to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff had executed a settlement deed (Doc
No.5401 dated 05.11.2012) with reference to the same property
to the defendant Senthil kumar son of the plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff further submits, that the plaintiff has

three daughters namely Manimala, Kirshnaveni, Indira and one
son named Senthi kumar. The defendant agrees to marry his own
sister’s daughter with the condition that the plaintiff should
execute the assets in favour of the defendant. So, the plaintiff as
a father of the defendant had executed the will in favour of his
son senthil kumar in the year of 2006 as per the condition. After
execution of will in the defendant name, he has married his own
sister’s daughter divya. After that the defendant said that he has
applied a Loan in Co-operative Bank to buy a new house and for
the Collateral third party security he has compelled the plaintiff
to execute a settlement deed of the suit property in his favour
without the knowledge of other daughters and also made a
promise that he would return the property after the bank
approved the loan.

4. The Plaintiff further submits the settlement deed

executed by the plaintiff his own property in favour of defendant
for the purpose of Collateral third party security for the
defendant to sanction the loan in the name of the defendant.
Thereafter the plaintiff has repaid the entire loan amount
through defendant, thereafter the defendant has assured the
plaintiff that he would cancel the settlement deed and return
back to him. Further it is submitted that the plaintiff believing
the defendant assurance but the defendant did not cancel the
settlement deed as mentioned above.
 5. The Plaintiff further submit, that now he is attaining
the age above 90 years, the defendant after fraudulently
obtaining the scheduled property he has neglected the plaintiff,
the defendant did not take care about the plaintiff’s health and
his survival, Now the plaintiff is so much suffering from health
condition and also he spend more money for his medical
expenditure, the plaintiff daughter alone helping him.

6. The Plaintiff further submits, in the mean time the

defendant has prepared to sale the suit property mentioned
below. Later it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the
plaintiff made a complaint dated on 21.05.2023 to the Sub
Registrar, Registrar Office, Vilangudi, Madurai that defendant is
illegally attempting to sale the property.

7. Further the plaintiff has signed without knowing the

actual content of the document because he is aged about 80
years old and his ears also partly deaf. So, he was not able to
understand what the others conversation at the time of
registration. But, he has signed believing his son’s word and
trusted defendant that he would not cheat. Under the said
circumstance, unless the settlement deed is cancelled in so far as
1st item Door No. 12/114 it would create a cloud in the right of
the plaintiff.
8. The plaintiff submits that this Hon’ble court has to
interfere the plaintiff’s case and set-aside the settlement deed
executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant fraudulently
bearing its registered Doc No.5401 dated 05.11.2012 nor the
plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and the
balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. In the similar
set of facts the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the light of
“Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi & Anr”. Now the plaintiff is
constrained to file the present suit before this Hon’ble court.

9. The cause of the suit arose on 05.11.2012 when the

plaintiff wrote a settlement deed in favour of the defendant and
later when the plaintiff came to know about the settlement deed
executed fraudulently under the false promise in Doc No.5401
dated 05.11.2012, on 21.05.2023 to the Sub Registrar, Registrar
Office, Vilangudi, Madurai and the defendant tried to disturb the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. So far Door
No. 12/114 is concerned and on all subsequent days when the
threat of impeachment of title to the suit properties to the
plaintiff continues.

11. The plaintiff values the suit

a) For relief (a) court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.12,50,000/-

and pays a court fee of Rs. 36000 /- under section 40(1) of Tamil
Nadu Court fee and Suit Valuation Act

b) For relief (b) court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1000/- and

pays a court fee of Rs. 30/- under section 27 (c) of Tamil Nadu
Court fee and Suit Valuation Act

c ) For relief ( c) court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 1000/- and

pays a Court of Rs. 30/- under Section 25(d) of Tamilnadu Court
Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955.

12) The plaintiff has not filed any other similar suit or other
proceedings for the relief sought for in the present suit.
 Under these circumstances the plaintiff is obliged to file the
present suit.
It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be
pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants

a) For declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of

the suit properties with possession and consequently grant
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit property by the plaintiff and

b) Pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour

of the plaintiff restraining the defendant and his henchmen
in any way make any encumbrance over the suit properties
in future.

c) pass a decree for declaration that the settlement deed in

Doc No.5401 dated 05.11.2012 executed by the plaintiff
favour of the defendant with reference to the schedule
property as mentioned given below is prayed to declare as
null and void and not binding on the plaintiff

d) Direct the contesting defendants to pay costs of the suit

e) Grant such other remedy or reliefs as it may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
 Details of valuation
Relief
Declaration valued at
Court fee paid U/s 40(1) of Rs. 12,50,000 /-
TN Court fees Act

Court Fee Rs. 36000 /-

Prohibitory Injuction at Rs.1000.00/-

Court fee payable thereon under
Sec 27(c) of T.N.C.F. Act as amended

Court Fee Rs.30/-

Relief
Declaration valued at
Court fee paid U/s 25(d) of Rs. 1000/-
TN Court fees Act

Court Fee Rs.30/-

----------------
Total fees Rs. 36060 /-
----------------

I, the plaintiff above named to hereby declare that the all the
facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge belief and
information and signed this at Madurai on

Counsel for Plaintiff Plaintiff

 Description of Suit Property
Madurai D Madurai, North, North Taluka, Vilangudi 1 st bit
Village, Survey No.168/23, Acre 1, Cent 7 Melpuram, cent 30
bounded by cent 15 subdivision as per new survey no.168/23 A,
UDR survey no.120/23 A cent 14 vilangudi special panchayat
recepit, of vilangudi special panchayat taxation No.618 kamatchi
nagar, door no.12/114 for house and shop currently as per
Madurai corporation house tax receipt ward No.23, taxation
no.685597, kamatchi nagar, door no.12/114 house and shops
four boundaries :
To the North: Ceylon Colony

To the East: Ceylon Colony

To the South: Road

To the West: Perumal Samy Nadar and Bathrakaali’s

shops.

I, the plaintiff above named to hereby declare that the all

the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge belief and
information and signed this at Madurai on
Counsel for Plaintiff Plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION

JUDGE, MADURAI
I.A. No. of 2023
In
O.S.No. of 2023

K.Arumugam …. Plaintiff

Vs
Senthilkumar …. Defendant

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

K.Arumugam, Son of Krishnaservai, Hindu aged about 90

years and residing at No.68/1, Bharathiyar Nagar 1 st street, Kasi
Kadai Backside, Sokkangulam, Madurai District.

1. I am the petitioner herein and plaintiff in the above

suit. I filed the above suit for Declaration and Permanent
injunction against the defendant.

2. I respectfully submit that the suit property survey Door

No. 12/114 an extent of 14 cents (6104 Sq.Mt) Vilangudi Village,
Madurai North, Madurai, originally belonged to me. I had
executed a gift deed (Doc No.5401 dated 05.11.2012) with
reference to the same property to the defendant Senthil kumar
(son of the plaintiff).
 3. I respectfully submit that I has two daughters namely
Kirshnaveni, Indira and one son named Senthi kumar. The
defendant agrees to marry his own sister’s daughter with the
condition that the plaintiff should execute the assets in favour of
the defendant. So, that as a father of the defendant I had
executed the will in favour of his son senthil kumar in the year of
2006 as per the condition. After execution of will in the defendant
name, he has married his own sister’s daughter divya. After that
the defendant said that he has applied a Loan in Co-operative
Bank to buy a new house and for the Collateral third party
security he has compelled me to execute a settlement deed of the
suit property in his favour without the knowledge of other
daughters and also made a promise that he would return the
property after the bank approved the loan.

4. I respectfully submit that, the settlement deed

executed by me, my own property in favour of defendant for the
purpose of Collateral third party security for the defendant to
sanction the loan in the name of the defendant. Thereafter I have
repaid the entire loan amount through defendant, thereafter the
defendant has assured me that he would cancel the settlement
deed and return back to me. Further it is submitted that I
believing the defendant assurance but the defendant did not
cancel the settlement deed as mentioned above.

5. I respectfully submit that now I am attaining the age

above 90 years, the defendant after fraudulently obtaining the
scheduled property he has neglected me, the defendant did not
take care about my health and his survival, Now I am so much
suffering from health condition and also spend more money for
my medical expenditure, My daughter alone helping me.

6. I respectfully submit that, in the mean time the

defendant has prepared to sale the suit property mentioned
below. Later it came to the knowledge me and I made a complaint
dated on 21.05.2023 to the Sub Registrar, Registrar Office,
Vilangudi, Madurai that defendant is illegally attempting to sale
the property.

7. Further I have signed without knowing the actual

content of the document because I am aged about 80 years old
and my ears also partly deaf. So, I was not able to understand
what the others conversation at the time of registration. But, I
has signed believing my son’s word and trusted defendant that he
would not cheat. Under the said circumstance, unless the
settlement deed is cancelled in so far as 1 st item Door No. 12/114
it would create a cloud in the right of the plaintiff.
8. I respectfully submit that this Hon’ble court has to
interfere my case and set-aside the settlement deed executed by
the me in favour of the defendant fraudulently bearing its
registered Doc No.5401 dated 05.11.2012 nor the plaintiff would
be put to irreparable loss and hardship and the balance of
convenience is in favour of me. In the similar set of facts the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the light of “Sudesh Chhikara
vs Ramti Devi & Anr”. Now I am constrained to file the present
suit before this Hon’ble court.

9. The cause of the suit arose on 05.11.2012 when the

plaintiff wrote a settlement deed in favour of the defendant and
later when the plaintiff came to know about the settlement deed
executed fraudulently under the false promise in Doc No.5401
dated 05.11.2012, on 21.05.2023 to the Sub Registrar, Registrar
Office, Vilangudi, Madurai and the defendant tried to disturb the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. So far Door
No. 12/114 is concerned and on all subsequent days when the
threat of impeachment of title to the suit properties to the
plaintiff continues.

10. The balance of convenience and prima-facie case is in

favour of me to grant permanent injunction against the
respondent/defendant and if the order is not granted I will put to
great loss and injury.

Wherefore it is prayed that the Honorable Court may be

pleased to declare the petitioner is absolute title holder for the
suit property and consequently grant temporary injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property by means of
temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit and to grant ad-
interim injunction to that effect till the disposal of this petition
and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed and

signed before me at
Ramanad on Petitioner/Plaintiff
 Advocate

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION

JUDGE, MADURAI
I.A. No. of 2023
In
O.S.No. of 2023
K.Arumugam …. Plaintiff

Vs
Senthilkumar …. Defendant

PLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1

& 2 READWITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908

I. Address of Plaintiff:
K.Arumugam, Son of Krishnaservai, Hindu aged about 90
years and residing at No.68/1, Bharathiyar Nagar 1 st street, Kasi
Kadai Backside, Sokkangulam, Madurai District.

II. Address of Defendant:

A.Senthikumar, Son of Arumugam, Hindu aged about
years and residing at No.12/114, Kamatchi Nagar, Vilangudi,
Madurai District.
 For the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit,
the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to
pass an order of temporary injunction against the respondent
restraining him and his men from in any way interfering with the
petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property till the disposal of the suit and also pass an ad-interim
ex-parte order of injunction on like terms till the disposal of this
petition, grant cost and grant such other or further reliefs that
this court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and
thus render justice.

Description of Suit Property

Madurai D Madurai, North, North Taluka, Vilangudi 1 st bit

Village, Survey No.168/23, Acre 1, Cent 7 Melpuram, cent 30
bounded by cent 15 subdivision as per new survey no.168/23 A,
UDR survey no.120/23 A cent 14 vilangudi special panchayat
recepit, of vilangudi special panchayat taxation No.618 kamatchi
nagar, door no.12/114 for house and shop currently as per
Madurai corporation house tax receipt ward No.23, taxation
no.685597, kamatchi nagar, door no.12/114 house and shops
four boundaries :
To the North: Ceylon Colony

To the East: Ceylon Colony

To the South: Road

To the West: Perumal Samy Nadar and Bathrakaali’s

shops.
 I, the plaintiff above named to hereby declare that the all
the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge belief and
information and signed this at Madurai on

Counsel for Plaintiff Plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION

JUDGE, MADURAI
O.S.No. of 2023

K.Arumugam …. Plaintiff

Vs
Senthilkumar …. Defendant
VALUATION SLIP

UNDER SECTION 40(1) OF THE TAMILNADU COURT FEE AND

SUIT VALUATION ACT, 1965:
The Plaintiff above named values the above suit as follows:

1. The relief of Deceleration valued under Section 40(1) OF

THE TAMILNADU COURT FEE AND SUIT VALUATION ACT and
relief of prohibitory injunction is valued at Rs.1000/- and court
fee of Rs.30 and relief of Declaration valued at Rs.1000/- and an
ad volerm court fee of Rs.30/- payable on the plaint.
 2. No other court fee is payable on the other relief/s which
are consequential in nature.

3. The total court fee payable is Rs.3060/- which is paid on

the plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

PLACE:
DATED: ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION

JUDGE, MADURAI

O.S.No. of 2023

K.Arumugam …. Plaintiff

Vs
Senthilkumar …. Defendant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF THE PLAINTIFF

SL. DATE PARTICULARS REMARKS

No.

Copy of Settlement deed in Doc Xerox copy

1. 05.11.2012
No.5401 dated 05.11.2012

2. Xerox copy
21.05.2023 Copy of representation made by the
plaintiff before the Sub Registrar,
Vilangudi.
 3. 06.12.2022 Copy of judgment in Civil Appeal Xerox copy
No.174 of 2021 dated 06.12.2022

Certified that the documents above mentioned are the true copies
of their respective originals

Counsel for Plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION

JUDGE, MADURAI
O.S.No. of 2023

K.Arumugam …. Plaintiff

Vs
Senthilkumar …. Defendant
ADDRESS MEMO FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER 6
RULE 14A OD C.P.C

I. Plaintiff: K.Arumugam, Son of Krishnaservai, Hindu aged

about 90 years and residing at No.68/1, Bharathiyar Nagar 1 st street,
Kasi Kadai Backside, Sokkangulam, Madurai District.

A.F.S Thiru K.S.DURAIPANDIAN B.A., B.L..,

E.No.639/84
K.Rajendran B.A., L.L.B.,
E.No.1489/2013
P.Balasubramani B.B.A., L.L.B.,
E.No.3736/2018
 C.Mohan B.Com., L.L.B.,
E.No.5531/2022
No.50/94, East 4th Street,
K.K.Nagar,
Madurai-20

II. Defendants:
A.Senthikumar, Son of Arumugam, Hindu aged about
years and residing at No.12/114, Kamatchi Nagar, Vilangudi,
Madurai District.

Counsel for Plaintiff Plaintiff

I, the plaintiff above named to hereby declare that the all the
facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge belief and
information and signed this at Madurai on

Counsel for Plaintiff Plaintiff

 DISTRICT: MADURAI

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, MADURAI

O.S.No. of 2023

PLAINT FILED BY THE

PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER VII
RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER

K.ARUMUGAM

ADVOCATES
M/s. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN
(639/84)

K.RAJENDRAN
(1489/13)

P.BALA SUBRAMANI