Plaint - Yoganathan 6.7.21

Clean Copy
IN THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT CHENGALPATTU
O.S.No. of 2020
1. Mrs.Seethalakshmi
Wife of Late Jaganathan
Plot No.77, Saraswathi St,
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Son of Late Jaganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088. .. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
No.3/171, Govindasamy Nagar,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.
2. M/s. Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd,

SP4, SIDCO,
Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate,
Behind Olympia Technology Park,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Alandur Sub Registrar Office,
No. 46, 1st Main Rd,
Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
Chennai-600 114. .. DEFENDANTS
PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC
The Plaintiffs most respectfully submit as follows:-
1. The 1st Plaintiff is Mrs.Seethalakshmi wife of Late. Jaganathan, aged about
67 years, residing at Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam, Chennai-600088.
The 2nd Plaintiff is Yoganathan son of Late. Jaganathan, aged about 47
years, residing at Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam,
Chennai-600088.
The 3rd Plaintiff is Guganathan son of Late. Jaganathan, aged about 43
years, residing Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam,
Chennai-600088.
The 4th Plaintiff is Mrs.Dhanalakshmi wife of Jeevagan, aged about 34
years, residing at Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam,
Chennai-600088.
The address for service of all processes and notices of the Plaintiffs is
that of their counsel M/s. N.Rabiya and Siraj at3/64,Padasalai Street,
Nazretpettai, Chennai-123.
2. The 1st Defendant is A.Murugan son of Ayyadurai, Hindu, Aged about
40 Years, residing at No.3/171, Govindasamy Nagar, 2nd Street,
Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

The 2nd Defendant is M/s. Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd,
having their branch office at SP4, SIDCO, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate,
behind Olympia Technology Park, Guindy, Chennai – 600032, represented
herein by their
The 3rd Defendant is the Sub Registrar, Alandur Sub Registrar Office,
No.46, 1st Main road, Macmillan Colony, Nanganallur, Chennai-600 114.
The address for services of all processes and notices on the Defendants
is as above mentioned.
3. The Plaintiffs submit that the property bearing Plot No.77,
Saraswathi Street, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088,
measuring an extent of 2550 sq.ft and together with the building measuring
abour 2200 Sq.ft, comprised in S.No.6/2, Paimash No.389, New S.No.246/4
as per the Alandur Town Survey Field Register Extract T.S No.25, Ward
No.F, Block No.12 vide Approval in DTP No.165/74, in Adambakkam
village, Alandur Taluk, formerly Kancheepuram District, now Chengalpattu
District, which property is morefully described in detail in the Schedule of
property hereunder, was purchased by one Jaganathan from Mrs.Nilamangai
Thayarammal and others by Sale Deed dated 26.02.1981 registered as
Document No.376 of 1981 SRO Alandur.
4. The Plaintiffs submit that the said Jaganathan (who is the husband of
the 1st Plaintiff and the father of the Plaintiffs 2 to 4) was the absolute owner
of the suit property. The Plaintiffs submit that the said Jaganathan had put up
the construction in the suit property and was in absolute possession and
enjoyment of the same. The Plaintiffs submits that Jaganathan had mortgaged
the suit property to M/s.Pace man Finance India Private Limited by Mortgage
Deed dated 14.09.2016 registered as Document No.4431 of 2016 SRO
Alandur and obtained a loan of Rs.36,50,000/- and was servicing the said
loan. The Plaintiffs submit that the said Jaganathan expired on 28.05.2017
leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his only legal heirs entitled to succeed to the
suit property. The Plaintiffs thus became the absolute owners of the suit
property, having inherited the same from Late Jaganathan.
5. The Plaintiffs submit that they are in absolute possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiff submits that due to the sudden
demise of their husband and father, they could not regularly repay the dues
for the mortgage loan pending with M/s.Paceman Finance India Private
Limited. The Plaintiffs submits that they required further funds for meeting
their other financial commitments including the marriage of the 2 nd Plaintiff’s
daughter. The Plaintiffs submit that the suit property was already under
mortgage with a Finance Firm and they were pressing for closure of the
mortgage loan under threat of public auction. Further the Plaintiffs did not
have the required income criteria for raising the funds to settle the mortgage
loan and also raise further finance on the suit property to meet their
commitments. The Plaintiffs submits that the Mortgagee Finance Company
was constantly pressurizing them for the money and the marriage date of the
2nd Plaintiff’s daughter was also fast approaching, hence the Plaintiffs had
approached their friends and relatives for financial help.
6. The Plaintiffs submit that at that time the 1st Defendant A.Murugan
approached the Plaintiffs as a financier and offered to give financial
assistance to them. The Plaintiffs submit that the suit property was worth
about Rs.2,00,00,000/- and the Plaintiffs required finance to the tune of

around Rs.90,00,000/- in order to meet their financial commitments. The
Plaintiffs submit that the 1st Defendant informed them that he could arrange a
loan on the security of the suit property based on his income and business to
the tune of about Rs.1,75,00,000/- and that the said loan will be sanctioned
only to the 1st Defendant and for that purpose the suit property had to be
formally registered in the name of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiffs submit that
the 1st Defendant informed them that he had arranged for loan of
Rs.1,72,39,500/- with the 2nd Defendant and that he would give
Rs.86,19,750/- to the Plaintiffs as loan provided they execute the Sale Deed
for the suit property in favour of the 1st Defendant as security. The Plaintiffs
submit that when they asked the 1st Defendant regarding the balance loan
amount of Rs.86,19,750/- he informed them that he would use the same for
his business and once the Plaintiffs repaid their part of loan, the 1 st Defendant
would settle the entire loan dues with the 2 nd Defendant and redeem the
property and re-convey the suit property to the Plaintiffs.
7. The Plaintiffs submit that since they were in a tight financial
situation requiring funds to clear the existing mortgage loan over the suit
property and also needed funds urgently for the marriage of the daughter of
the 2nd Plaintiff and for their business needs, they agreed for the offer of the 1 st
Defendant. The Plaintiffs submit that the 1 st Defendant informed them that he
would prepare the necessary sale deed and documents since he would be
arranging loan over the suit property with the 2 nd Defendant and also clear the
existing mortgage dues for the loan with M/s.Paceman Financial India Private
Limited. The Plaintiffs submit that 22.06.2017 the existing mortgage with
M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited was cleared by the 1 st

Defendant for a sum of Rs.36.50,000/- and the receipt for cancellation of the
mortgage was registered by M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited as
Document No.2713 of 2017 dated 22.06.2017 SRO Alandur. The Plaintiffs
submit that on the very same day the 1 st Defendant had arranged for execution
of the Sale Deed in his favour as security for the loan amounts to be given by
him to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that since the 1 st Defendant had
cleared the existing loan with M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited,
they believed the words of the 1st Defendant and accordingly executed a
formal Sale Deed in favour of the 1 st Defendant on 22.06.2017 registered as
8. The Plaintiffs submit that subsequent to the registration of the Sale
Deed they asked the 1st Defendant for the loan amount of Rs.86,19,750/-. The
1st Defendant informed the Plaintiffs that he to first clear the existing loan and
that he could raise the loan amount of Rs.86,19,750/- only after mortgaging
the suit property with the 2nd Defendant and that it would take about 10 days
time. The Plaintiffs informed the 1 st Defendant that they required the funds
immediately since the marriage of the 2nd Plaintiff’s daughter was nearing.
The 1st Defendant informed the Plaintiffs that he would at first pay a sum of
Rs.13,50,000/- and that he would pay the remaining loan amounts within 10
days. The Plaintiffs submit that they were paid only a sum of Rs.13,50,000/-
after execution of the above said Sale Deed in favour of the 1 st Defendant.
The Plaintiffs submit that subsequently when they contacted the 1st
Defendant, he informed them that the loan was still not received by him and
that he would pay the balance loan amount to the Plaintiffs shortly and he was
dragging the payment.

9. The Plaintiffs submit that since the marriage of the 2 nd Plaintiffs
daughter had to be performed they utilized the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- paid
by the 1st Defendant and they were waiting for the payment of the balance
loan amount. The Plaintiffs submit that since the 1 st Defendant was constantly
delaying the payment of the balance loan amount, they obtained the copy of
the Sale Deed executed by them in favour of the 1 st Defendant and found that
the 1st Defendant had incorporated consideration in the Sale Deed as though
he had cleared the existing loan M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited
to the tune of Rs.36,50,000/- and that he had paid a sum of Rs.49,69,750/- to
the Plaintiffs by way of the following cheques,
i) Rs.13,50,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001727 drawn on Axis Bank
Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,
ii) Rs.15,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001728 drawn on Axis Bank
iii) Rs.7,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001729 drawn on Axis Bank
iv) Rs.7,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001730 drawn on Axis Bank
v) Rs.7,19,750/- by Cheque bearing No.001731 drawn on Axis Bank
The Plaintiffs submit that apart from the one cheque bearing No.001727 for
Rs.13,50,000/- the 1st Defendant had not issued any of the other 4 cheques as
stated in the Sale Deed. Further even though the 1st Defendant had promised
to arrange a loan of Rs.86,19,750/- to the Plaintiffs, he had stealthily included
the payment of Rs.36,50,000/- to M/s/Paceman Financial India Private

Limited in the consideration clause. Further the 1 st Defendant had mortgaged
the suit property to the 2nd Defendant M/s. Orix Leasing and Financial
Services India Ltd on 03.07.2017 and taken a loan amount of Rs.1,72,75,000/-
by way of Deposit of the Title Deeds of the suit property registered by him in
favour of the 2nd Defendant as Document No.3013 of 2017 SRO Alandur.
10. The Plaintiffs submit that they were shocked to find this and they
immediately contacted the 1st Defendant and enquired about the same. The 1 st
Defendant promised to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.49,69,750/- within
a short time. The Plaintiffs submit that subsequently the 1 st Defendant started
paying the balance loan amounts in small amounts and totally he paid a
further amount of Rs.16,74,999/- to the Plaintiffs between July 2017 to April
2019. Thereafter the 1st Defendant started to avoid meeting the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs submit that even though the consideration in the Sale Deed executed
by the Plaintiffs as security in favour of the 1st Defendant was shown as
Rs.86,19,750/-, the 1st Defendant had paid only a sum of Rs.66,74,999/- to the
Plaintiffs including the amount of Rs.36,50,000/- paid to M/s.Paceman
Financial India Private Limited. The Plaintiffs submit that even the balance
consideration of Rs.19,44,751/- has not been paid by the 1st Defendant to the
Plaintiffs.
11. The Plaintiffs submit that subsequently the 1 st Defendant started to
avoid the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that only then they realized that the
1st Defendant was had cheated them and he had taken a loan of about
Rs.1,75,00,000/-on the security of the suit property and was attempting to
abscond without clearing the mortgage dues with the 2 nd Defendant. The
Plaintiffs submit that the suit property is worth about Rs.2 crores and the 1 st
Defendant on the pretext of giving a loan of Rs.86 Lakhs had duped the
Plaintiffs and obtained a fraudulent sale deed from the Plaintiffs by deceit and
he had taken huge loans from the 2nd Defendant on the security of the suit
property and cheated the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that they
immediately approached the Defendants and offered to pay back the loan
amount of Rs.66,74,999/- paid by the 1st Defendant and redeem the suit
property. The 3rd Plaintiff had also accordingly obtained sanction for the
required amount by way of loan from Axis Bank and the Plaintiffs informed
the 1st Defendant to clear the loans over the suit property with the 2 nd
Defendant. However the 1st Defendant is avoiding to meet the Plaintiffs and is
attempting the abscond leaving the Plaintiffs high and dry.
12. The Plaintiffs submit that the 1 st Defendant only offered to give
loan of Rs.86,19,750/- on the security of the suit property and by his false
promise obtained a fraudulent sale deed from the Plaintiff by deceit. The
Plaintiffs that they had never agreed to sell the suit property to anyone much
less the 1st Defendant. Further no sale consideration as stated in the said
fabricated Sale Deed was paid to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that the
Sale Deed dated 22.06.2017 bearing Document No.2715 of 2017 SRO
Alandur executed by them in favour of the 1st Defendant is only a mortgage in
the style of a Sale Deed and no sale consideration has passed to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs submit that the 1st Defendant cannot claim title to the suit
property based on the above sale deed. The Plaintiffs further submit that the
1st Defendant has admittedly not paid the entire sale consideration as stated in
the above Sale Deed. The payments made by the 1 st Defendant subsequent to
the registration of the above Sale Deed would clearly establish that the above
Sale Deed is a sham and nominal document and only a security document for
the loan to be advanced by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
submit that in any event even the alleged sale consideration is not paid in full
by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that they are still in
possession of the suit property and their families are living there. The
Plaintiffs submit that the 2nd Defendant in collusion with the 1st Defendant is
now taking steps to sell the suit property by auction and in such case the
Plaintiffs would lose their valuable property and be put to much loss and
hardship.
13. The Plaintiffs submit that they are the absolute owners in
possession of the suit property and the Sale Deed created by the 1 st Defendant
is a fraudulent bogus document, does not bind the plaintiffs and the said sale
deed is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are in
absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of
purchase and no one else much less the 1st and 2nd Defendants have got any
right, title or interest over the same. The Plaintiffs submit that the said sale
deed has been created by the 1stDefendant by deceit and is not valid in law.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants cannot claim any right or title over the suit
property based on the above said sale deed. The Plaintiffs submit that the 1 st
and 2nd Defendants taking advantage of the above fraudulent sale deed are
attempting to trespass into the suit property and create encumbrances over the
same and create 3rd party interests in order to further complicate the issue and
defeat the rights of the Plaintiffs over the suit property. The Plaintiffs submit
that their possession has to be protected by this Hon'ble Court by an order of
permanent injunction. The balance of convenience is in favour of the

Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have therefore approached this Hon’ble Court for a
Declaration that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property, Declaration
that the Sale Deed dated 22.06.2017 bearing Document No.2715 of 2017
SRO Alandur executed by them in favour of the 1st Defendant is null and void
since the sale consideration has not been paid to the Plaintiffs, for permanent
injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 creating any encumbrances on
the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1
and 2 from in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. The 3 rd Defendant being the competent
Sub Registrar in respect of the suit property is impleaded as a Defendant in
the suit in order to cull out the above violations and ensure that there are no
further encumbrances are created by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in respect of
the suit property. The Plaintiffs submit that even though the main relief
sought for by them in the above suit is only for declaration of their title to the
suit property and to set aside the Sale Deed in favour of the 1 st Defendant,
however if this Hon’ble Court eventually in the end comes to the conclusion
that the Sale Deed executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of the 1 st Defendant is
valid in law, then in such event the Plaintiffs would have to seek for recovery
of the above said balance amount of Rs.19,44,751/- from the 1 st Defendant
and file a separate suit which would lead to various complications like
resjudicata and limitation, etc.
14. The cause of action for the above suit arose within the jurisdiction
of this Hon'ble Court where the suit property is situate, when the Plaintiffs
father Jaganathan purchased the suit property, when the Plaintiffs father
mortgaged the suit property and took loan M/s.Paceman Financial India
Private Limited, when the Plaintiffs father Jaganathan expired in 2017 leaving
behind the Plaintiffs as his only legal heirs to inherit the suit property, when
the Plaintiffs inherited the suit property and they are in absolute possession
and enjoyment of the suit property, when the Plaintiffs were in need of loan
for refunding the lease amount to M/s.Paceman Financial India Private
Limited and to meet their other financial requirements, when the 1 st
Defendant approached the Plaintiff and offered to give financial assistance to
the Plaintiffs on the security of the suit property and requested the Plaintiff to
execute a nominal Sale Deed in favour of him as security for the loan amount,
on 22.06.2017 when the Plaintiffs executed the Sale Deed as security in
favour of the 1st Defendant, when the 1st Defendant failed to pay the entire
consideration/loan as promised by him to the Plaintiffs, when the 1 st
Defendant mortgaged the suit property with the 2 nd Defendant, when the 1st
Defendant failed to pay the consideration as stated in the Sale Deed, when the
Plaintiffs called upon the 1st Defendant to receive back the loan amount of
Rs.66,74,999/- and cancel the mortgage executed by the 1st Defendant in
favour of the 2nd Defendant and re-convey the suit property to the Plaintiffs,
when the 1st Defendant failed to do so, when the 1 st and 2nd Defendants are
attempting to trespass into the suit property and create further encumbrances
by executing Agreement of Sale in favour of the 3rd parties and subsequently
within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
15. The Plaintiffs value the suit for the purpose of court fee and
jurisdiction for prayer;

(a) for the relief of Declaration of Title at Rs.86,19,750/- and pays a
court fee of Rs. 2,58,592.5/- under Section 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court
Fee and Suit Valuation Act 1956.
(b) for relief of declaration that the Sale Deed executed by the
Plaintiffs in favour of the 1st Defendant dated 22.06.2017 registered as
Document No.2715 of 2017 SRO Alandur is null and void at Rs.5000 /- and
pays a court fee of Rs150 under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu
Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act 1956.
(c) for the relief of permanent injunction at Rs.1,000/- and pays a court
fee of Rs. 30 under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit
Valuation Act 1956.
(d) for the relief of permanent injunction at Rs.1,000/- and pays a court
fee of Rs. 30 under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit
Valuation Act 1956,
16. The Plaintiffs therefore pray that this Hon'ble court may be
pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the Defendants
(a) Declaring that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit
property,
(b) Declaring that the Sale Deed dated 22.06.2017 registered as
Document No.2715 of 2017 SRO Alandur is null and void and not binding on
the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit property,
(c) for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 & 2 from
interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property,
(d) for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 & 2 from
alienating or creating any further encumbrances on the suit property,
(g) for costs and grant such other or further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.
Dated at Chengalpattu this the 15th day of June 2020.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS
VERIFICATION
We, 1) Mrs.Seethalakshmi , 2) Yoganathan, 3) Guganathan, 4)
Mrs.Dhanalakshmi, the Plaintiffs herein do hereby verify and state that what
is stated above in paragraphs 1 to 16 are true to the best of our
knowledge and belief.
Verified at Chengalpattu this the 15th day of June 2020.
PLAINTIFFS.
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Plot No.77, Saraswathi
Street, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 089 measuring an extent
of 2550 sq.ft and together with the building measuring about 2200 Sq.ft, and
comprised in S.No.6/2, Paimash No.389, New S.No.246/4 as per the Alandur
Town Survey Field Register Extract T.S No.25, Ward No.F, Block No.12
vide Approval in DTP No.165/74, in Adambakkam village, Alandur Taluk,
formerly Kancheepuram District, now Chengalpattu District,
Dated at Chengalpattu this the 3rd day of sep 2020.
PLAINTIFFS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14 (1) OF

C.P.C.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
S.No. Date Descripton Nature of Doc
01. 26.2.1981 Sale Deed Doc.No.376/81 . Certified
Copy
02. 12.9.2016 Simple Mortgage Deed Certified
copy
03 30.5.2017 Death Certificate True Copy

04 13.6.2017 Legal Heir certificate original
05 22.6.2017 Sale Deed 2715/2017 . Certified
copy
06 3.7.2017 Memorandum relating to Certified
deposit of Title deeds copy
07 Patta Download
copy
08 st
I.D Proof of 1 Plaintiff Xerox
09 I.D Proof of 2nd Plaintiff Xerox
10 I.D Proof of 3rd Plaintiff Xerox
11 I.D Proof of 4th Plaintiff Xerox

12 5.2.2020 Gas Bill Original
13 2.3.2020 Property Tax Card Original
14 Encumbrance Certificate Xerox
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(2)

OF C.P.C.

STATEMENT OF ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES UNDER ORDER VI
RULE 14 (a) C.P.C.
Address of the Plaintiff : 1. Mrs.Seethalakshmi

Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
Address for service : M/s.N.RABIYA, &SIRAJ

of the Plaintiff
at 3/64,Padasali street, Nasretpettai,
Chennai-600 123.
Address of the Defendants :1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street, Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.
2. M/s. Orix Leasing and Financial

Services India Ltd, SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
Chennai-600 114.
VERIFICATION
We, 1) Mrs.Seethalakshmi , 2) Yoganathan, 3) Guganathan, 4)
Mrs.Dhanalakshmi, the Plaintiffs herein do hereby verify and state that the
facts stated above are true to the best of our knowledge and belief.
Verified at Chengalpattu this 3rd day of sep 2020.
PLAINTIFFS.
I.A.No. of 2020
in
O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088. .. Petitioners
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
Chennai-600 114. .. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF YOGANATHAN
I, Yoganathan son of Late. Jagannathan, aged about 47 years, residing at
Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai-
600088, filing this affidavit behalf of the 1st, 3rd to 4th Petitioners, Do hereby
solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
3. I submit that the property bearing Plot No.77, Saraswathi Street, Bharath
Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 089 measurng an extent of 2200 sq.ft and
formerly Kancheepuram District, now Chengalpattu District, which property
is morefully described in detail in the Schedule of property hereunder, was
purchased by one Jaganathan from Mrs.Nilamangai Thayarammal and others
by Sale Deed dated 26.02.1981 registered as Document No.376 of 1981 SRO
Alandur.
4. I submit that the said Jaganathan (who is the husband of the 1 st Petitioner
and the father of the Petitioners 2 to 4) was the absolute owner of the suit
property. I submit that the said Jaganathan had put up the construction in the
suit property and was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. I
submit that Jaganathan had mortgaged the suit property to M/s.Pace man
Finance India Private Limited by Mortgage Deed dated 14.09.2016 registered
as Document No.4431 of 2016 SRO Alandur and obtained a loan of
Rs.50,00,000/- and was servicing the said loan. I submit that the said
Jaganathan expired on 30.08.2017 leaving behind the Petitioner as his only
legal heirs entitled to succeed to the suit property. The Petitioners thus
became the absolute owners of the suit property, having inherited the same
from Late Jaganathan.
5. I submit that we are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. I submit that due to the sudden demise of husband of 1 st petitioner
and father of 2 to 4th petitioners, they could not regularly repay the dues for
the mortgage loan pending with M/s.Paceman Finance India Private Limited.
I submit that the required further funds for meeting their other financial
commitments including the marriage of my daughter. I submit that the suit
property was already under mortgage with a Finance Firm and they were
pressing for closure of the mortgage loan under threat of public auction.
Further the Petitioner did not have the required income criteria for raising the
funds to settle the mortgage loan and also raise further finance on the suit
property to meet their commitments. I submit that the Mortgagee Finance
Company was constantly pressurizing us for the money and the marriage date
of my daughter was also fast approaching, hence the Petitioners had
6. I submit that at that time the 1st Defendant A.Murugan approached me as a
financier and offered to give financial assistance to us. I submit that the suit
property was worth about Rs.2,00,00,000/- and the Petitioners required
finance to the tune of around Rs.90,00,000/- in order to meet their financial

commitments. I submit that the 1st Respondent informed them that he could
arrange a loan on the security of the suit property based on his income and
business to the tune of about Rs.1,75,00,000/- and that the said loan will be
sanctioned only to the 1st Respondent and for that purpose the suit property
had to be formally registered in the name of the 1 st Respondent. I submit that
the 1st Respondent informed me that he had arranged for loan of
Rs.1,72,39,500/- with the 2nd Respondent and that he would give
Rs.86,19,750/- to the us as loan provided they execute the Sale Deed for the
suit property in favour of the 1st Respondent as security. I submit that when
we asked the 1st Respondent regarding the balance loan amount of
Rs.86,19,750/- he informed us that he would use the same for his business
and once the petitioners repaid their part of loan, the 1 st Respondent would
settle the entire loan dues with the 2nd Respondent and redeem the property
and re-convey the suit property to us.
7. I submit that since we were in a tight financial situation requiring
funds to clear the existing mortgage loan over the suit property and also
needed funds urgently for the marriage of my daughter and for my business
needs, they agreed for the offer of the 1st Respondent. I submit that the 1st
Respondent informed them that he would prepare the necessary sale deed and
documents since he would be arranging loan over the suit property with the
2nd Respondent and also clear the existing mortgage dues for the loan with
M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited. I submit that 22.06.2017 the
existing mortgage with M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited was
cleared by the 1st Respondent for a sum of Rs.36.50,000/- and the receipt for
cancellation of the mortgage was registered by M/s.Paceman Financial India

Private Limited as Document No.2715 of 2017 dated 22.06.2017 SRO
Alandur. I submit that on the very same day the 1 st Respondent had arranged
for execution of the Sale Deed in his favour as security for the loan amounts
to be given by him to us. I submit that since the 1 st Respondent had cleared
the existing loan with M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited, they
believed the words of the 1st Respondent and accordingly executed a formal
Sale Deed in favour of the 1st Respondent on 22.06.2017 registered as
8. I submit that subsequent to the registration of the Sale Deed we
asked the 1st Respondent for the loan amount of Rs.86,19,750/-. The 1 st
Respondent informed us that he has to first clear the existing loan and that he
could raise the loan amount of Rs.86,19,750/- only after mortgaging the suit
property with the 2nd Respondent and that it would take about 10 days time. I
informed the 1st Respondent that we required the funds immediately since the
marriage of the my daughter was nearing. The 1 st Respondent informed me
that he would first pay a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- and that he would pay the
remaining loan amounts within 10 days. I submit that they were paid only a
sum of Rs.13,50,000/- after execution of the above said Sale Deed in favour
of the 1st Respondent. I submit that subsequently when they contacted the 1st
Respondent, he informed us that the loan was still not received by him and
that he would pay the balance loan amount to us shortly and he was dragging
the payment.
9. I submit that since the marriage of my daughter had to be performed
they utilized the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- paid by the 1st Respondent and we
were waiting for the payment of the balance loan amount. I submit that since
the 1st Respondent was constantly delaying the payment of the balance loan
amount, they obtained the copy of the Sale Deed executed by them in favour
of the 1st Respondent and found that the 1st Respondent had incorporated
consideration in the Sale Deed as though he had cleared the existing loan
M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited to the tune of Rs.36,50,000/-
and that he had paid a sum of Rs.49,19,750/- to us by way of the following
cheques,
Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,I submit that apart from the one cheque bearing
No.001727 for Rs.13,50,000/- the 1st Respondent had not issued any of the
other 4 cheques as stated in the Sale Deed. Further even though the 1 st
Respondent had promised to arrange a loan of Rs.86,19,750/- to us, he had
stealthily included the payment of Rs.36,50,000/- to M/s/Paceman Financial
India Private Limited in the consideration clause. Further the 1 st Respondent
had mortgaged the suit property to the 2 nd Respondent M/s. Orix Leasing and
Financial Services India Ltd on 03.07.2017 and taken a loan amount of
Rs.1,72,75,000/- by way of Deposit of the Title Deeds of the suit property

registered by him in favour of the 2 nd Respondent as Document No.3013 of
2017 SRO Alandur.
10. I submit that we were shocked to find this and we immediately
contacted the 1st Respondent and enquired about the same. The 1 st Respondent
promised to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.72,69,750/- within a short
time. I submit that subsequently the 1st Respondent started paying the balance
loan amounts in small amounts and totally he paid a further amount of
Rs.16,74,999/- to the Petitioners between July 2017 to April 2019. Thereafter
the 1st Respondent started to avoid meeting us. I submit that even though the
consideration in the Sale Deed executed by us as security in favour of the 1 st
Respondent was shown as Rs.86,19,750/-, the 1st Respondent had paid only a
sum of Rs.66,74,999/- to us including the amount of Rs.36,50,000/- paid to
M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited. I submit that even the balance
consideration of Rs.19,44,751/- has not been paid by the 1st Respondent to the
Petitioners.
11. I submit that subsequently the 1st Respondent started to avoid the
us. I submit that only then we realized that the 1 st Respondent had cheated us
and he had taken a loan of about Rs.1,75,00,000/-on the security of the suit
property and was attempting to abscond without clearing the mortgage dues
with the 2nd Respondent. I submit that the suit property is worth about Rs.2
crores and the 1st Respondent on the pretext of giving a loan of Rs.86 Lakhs
had duped the Petitioners and obtained a fraudulent sale deed from the
Petitioners by deceit and he had taken huge loans from the 2 nd Respondent on
the security of the suit property and cheated the Petitioners. I submit that we
immediately approached the 1st Respondent and offered to pay back the loan
amount of Rs.66,74,999/- paid by the 1st Respondent and redeem the suit
property. The 3rd Petitioner had also accordingly obtained sanction for the
the 1st Respondent to clear the loans over the suit property with the
2ndRespondant. However the 1st Respondent is avoiding to meet the
Petitioners and is attempting the abscond leaving the Petitioners high and dry.
12. I submit that the 1st Respondent only offered to give loan of
Rs.86,19,750/- on the security of the suit property and by his false promise
obtained a fraudulent sale deed from the Petitioner by deceit. The Petitioners
had never agreed to sell the suit property to anyone much less the 1 st
Respondent. Further no sale consideration as stated in the said fabricated Sale
Deed was paid to the Petitioners. I submit that the Sale Deed dated
22.07.2017 bearing Document No.2715 of 2017 SRO Alandur executed by
them in favour of the 1st Respondent is only a mortgage in the style of a Sale
Deed and no sale consideration has passed to the Petitioners. I submit that the
1st Respondent cannot claim title to the suit property based on the above sale
deed. I further submit that the 1st Respondent has admittedly not paid the
entire sale consideration as stated in the above Sale Deed. The payments
made by the 1st Respondent subsequent to the registration of the above Sale
Deed would clearly establish that the above Sale Deed is a sham and nominal
document and only a security document for the loan to be advanced by the 1 st
Respondent to the Petitioners. I submit that in any event even the alleged sale
consideration is not paid in full by the 1 st Respondent to the Petitioners. I
submit that we are still in possession of the suit property and my families are
living in the suit property. I submit that the 2 nd Respondent in collusion with
the 1st Respondent is now taking steps to sell the suit property by auction and
in such case the Petitioners would lose their valuable property and be put to
much loss and hardship.
13. I submit that we are the absolute owners in possession of the suit
property and the Sale Deed created by the 1 st Respondent is a fraudulent
bogus document, does not bind the petitioners and the said sale deed is null
and void and not binding on the petitioners. The Petitioners are in absolute
possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase and
no one else much less the 1st and 2nd Respondent have got any right, title or
interest over the same. I submit that the said sale deed has been created by
the 1stRespondant by deceit and is not valid in law. The 1 st and 2nd
Respondents cannot claim any right or title over the suit property based on
the above said sale deed. I submit that the 1st and 2nd Respondents taking
advantage of the above fraudulent sale deed are attempting to trespass into
the suit property and create encumbrances over the same and create 3 rd party
interests in order to further complicate the issue and defeat the rights of the
Petitioners over the suit property. I submit that their possession has to be
protected by this Hon'ble Court by an order of permanent injunction. The
balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have
therefore approached this Hon’ble Court for a Declaration that the Petitioners
are the owners of the suit property, Declaration that the Sale Deed dated
them in favour of the 1st Respondent is null and void since the sale
consideration has not been paid to the Petitioners, for permanent injunction
restraining the Respondents 1 and 2 creating any encumbrances on the suit

property and for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent 1 and 2
from in any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. The 3rd Respondent being the competent Sub
Registrar in respect of the suit property is imp leaded as a Respondent in the
suit in order to cull out the above violations and ensure that there are no
further encumbrances are created by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in respect of
the suit property. I submit that even though the main relief sought for by them
in the above suit is only for declaration of their title to the suit property and to
set aside the Sale Deed in favour of the 1st Respondent.
it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an
order of interim injunction restraining the Respondents 1st and 2nd , their
men and agents ,servants from in any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property pending disposal of
the above suit and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chengleput Before me,
this the 3rd day of sep 2020.

and signed his name in my presence. Advocate, Chengleput

I.A.No. of 2020
in
O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.
Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction
restraining the Respondents 1 and 2 , their men and agents ,servants from in
any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property pending disposal of the above suit and thus
render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the Day of 15th June 2020
Counsel for petitioners
Dated at Chengalpattu this the day of March 2020

O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 others .. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 others .. DEFENDANTS
MEMO OF VALUATION
For Declaration of Title -Rs.2,58,593

Value of prayer (a) -
Court fees paid u/s 40
Relief of Declaration U/s 25(d) - 150

of Tamil Nadu Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act
Court fee of Rs.5000/-
Value of the Prayer(b)
Fixed Court fees paid u/s 27(c) - 30

Value of prayer (e) -
Fixed Court fees paid u/s 27(c) - 30

Total Rs.2,58,803
Dated at Chengleput on this 15th day of June 2020
Counsel for Plaintiffs

O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.
Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
Verifying Affidavit of Mr. Yogananthan

600088, filing this affidavit behalf of the 1 , 3 to 4th Petitioners, Do hereby
st rd

1.I am the 2nd Plaintiff herein.
2. I do hereby verify that what all stated in the paragraphs 1 to of the

plaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I
have not suppressed any material facts.
Solemnly affirmed at Chengleput

This the 3rd day of Sep2020 Before me,
And signed his name in my

Presence. Advocate, Chengleput
O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.
Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
STATEMENT OF ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES UNDER ORDER VI

RULE 14 (a) C.P.C.
Address of the Plaintiff : 1. Mrs.Seethalakshmi

Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
Address for service : M/s.N.RABIYA, &SIRAJ

of the Plaintiff
at 3/64,Padasali street, Nasretpettai,
Chennai-600 123.
Address of the Defendants :1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street, Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.
2. M/s. Orix Leasing and Financial

Services India Ltd, SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
Chennai-600 114.
Dated at Chengalpattu this the 3rd day of sep2020
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

I.A.No. of 2020
in
O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
Affidavit of I, Yoganathan
I, Yoganathan son of Late. Jagannathan, aged about 47 years, residing
at Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam,
Chennai-600088, filing this affidavit behalf of the 1st, 3rd to 4th Petitioners,
Do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
I am the petitioner herein, 2nd plaintiff in the suit and acquainted with the
facts of the suit. I filed the main suit for declaration and permanent
injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from creating any
encumbrances on the suit property . the 3rd defendant is the S.R.O,
Neelangarai. There are detailed in the Plaint and the Plaint may be read as
part and parcel of this petition. If the 1 st and 2nd respondents were
encumbrance my property , my rights will be seriously effected and I will
suffer great lost. There is no sufficient time to issue notice under section
80(1) C.P.C. There is great urgency to stop the further encumbrance,
Hence it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit me to
institute the suit without serving any notice as required by section 80(1)
C.P.C.
I am also separate petition for interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd
Respondents from creating any encumbrances on the suit property.

This the 8th day of Aug2020 Before me,


I.A.No. of 2020
in
O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITION/PLAINTIFF U/S 80(2) C.P.C.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased permit him to file the suit by dispensing
with notice U/s 80(1) C.P.C. and to pass such other orders that this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the petition.
Dated at Chengalpattu this the 15th day of June 2020.
Counsel for petitioner

SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY
Dated at Chengalpattu this the day of March 2020
O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
PROOF AFFIDAVIT OF FILED BY THE 2nd PLAINTIFF

1.I, Yoganathan son of Late. Jagannathan, aged about 47 years, residing at
600088, filing this affidavit behalf of the 1st, 3rd to 4th Petitioners, The I.D
proof of 1st Plaintiff is marked as ExA7 , The I.D proof of 2nd Plaintiff is
marked as ExA8, The I.D proof of 3rd Plaintiff is marked as ExA9, The I.D
proof of 4th Plaintiff is marked as ExA10, Do hereby solemnly affirm and
sincerely state as follows:-
2.I am the 2nd plaintiff in the above said suit and as such I am well
acquainted with all facts and circumstance of the case.
Alandur, marked as Ex-A1, Sale Deed bearing document No. 376 of
1981 dated 26.02.1981.
4. I submit that the said Jaganathan (who is the husband of the 1st Petitioner
Jaganathan expired on 30.08.2017 marked as Ex-A2, Death certificate
leaving behind the Petitioner as his only legal heirs entitled to succeed to the
suit property. The Petitioners thus became the absolute owners of the suit
property, having inherited the same from Late Jaganathan. marked as Ex-
A3, Legal heir ship certificate.

7. I submit that since we were in a tight financial situation requiring funds to
clear the existing mortgage loan over the suit property and also needed funds
urgently for the marriage of my daughter and for my business needs, they
agreed for the offer of the 1st Respondent. I submit that the 1st Respondent
informed them that he would prepare the necessary sale deed and documents
since he would be arranging loan over the suit property with the 2 nd
Respondent and also clear the existing mortgage dues for the loan with
Alandur. marked as Ex-A4, Sale Deed bearing document No. 2715 of
2017, dated 22.6.2017 I submit that on the very same day the 1st
Respondent had arranged for execution of the Sale Deed in his favour as
security for the loan amounts to be given by him to us. I submit that since the
1st Respondent had cleared the existing loan with M/s.Paceman Financial
India Private Limited, they believed the words of the 1st Respondent and
accordingly executed a formal Sale Deed in favour of the 1 st Respondent on
22.06.2017 registered as Document No.2715 of 2017 SRO Alandur.
8. I submit that subsequent to the registration of the Sale Deed we asked the
1st Respondent for the loan amount of Rs.86,19,750/-. The 1 st Respondent
informed us that he has to first clear the existing loan and that he could raise
the loan amount of Rs.86,19,750/- only after mortgaging the suit property
with the 2nd Respondent and that it would take about 10 days time. I informed
the 1st Respondent that we required the funds immediately since the marriage
of the my daughter was nearing. The 1st Respondent informed me that he
would first pay a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- and that he would pay the remaining
loan amounts within 10 days. I submit that they were paid only a sum of
Rs.13,50,000/- after execution of the above said Sale Deed in favour of the 1 st
Respondent. I submit that subsequently when they contacted the 1st
the payment.
9. I submit that since the marriage of my daughter had to be performed they
utilized the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- paid by the 1 st Respondent and we were
waiting for the payment of the balance loan amount. I submit that since the 1 st
Respondent was constantly delaying the payment of the balance loan amount,
they obtained the copy of the Sale Deed executed by them in favour of the 1 st
Respondent and found that the 1st Respondent had incorporated consideration
in the Sale Deed as though he had cleared the existing loan M/s.Paceman
Financial India Private Limited to the tune of Rs.36,50,000/- and that he had
paid a sum of Rs.49,19,750/- to us by way of the following cheques,
1. i) Rs.13,50,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001727 drawn on Axis
Bank Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,
2. ii) Rs.15,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001728 drawn on Axis
3. iii) Rs.7,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001729 drawn on Axis
4. iv) Rs.7,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001730 drawn on Axis
5. v) Rs.7,19,750/- by Cheque bearing No.001731 drawn on Axis
Bank Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,I submit that apart from the one
cheque bearing No.001727 for Rs.13,50,000/- the 1st Respondent
had not issued any of the other 4 cheques as stated in the Sale
Deed. Further even though the 1st Respondent had promised to
arrange a loan of Rs.86,19,750/- to us, he had stealthily included
the payment of Rs.36,50,000/- to M/s/Paceman Financial India
Private Limited in the consideration clause. Further the 1st

Respondent had mortgaged the suit property to the 2 nd Respondent
M/s. Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd on 03.07.2017
and taken a loan amount of Rs.1,72,75,000/- by way of Deposit of
the Title Deeds of the suit property registered by him in favour of
the 2nd Respondent as Document No.3013 of 2017 SRO Alandur.
marked as Ex-A5, mortgage Deed bearing document No.
3013 of 2017, dated 3.7.17.
10. I submit that we were shocked to find this and we immediately contacted
the 1st Respondent and enquired about the same. The 1st Respondent promised
to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.72,69,750/- within a short time. I submit
that subsequently the 1st Respondent started paying the balance loan amounts
in small amounts and totally he paid a further amount of Rs.16,74,999/- to the
Petitioners between July 2017 to April 2019. Thereafter the 1st Respondent
started to avoid meeting us. I submit that even though the consideration in the
Sale Deed executed by us as security in favour of the 1st Respondent was
shown as Rs.86,19,750/-, the 1st Respondent had paid only a sum of
Rs.66,74,999/- to us including the amount of Rs.36,50,000/- paid to
Petitioners.
11. I submit that subsequently the 1st Respondent started to avoid the us. I
submit that only then we realized that the 1 st Respondent had cheated us and
he had taken a loan of about Rs.1,75,00,000/-on the security of the suit
13. I submit that we are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property
and the Sale Deed created by the 1 st Respondent is a fraudulent bogus
document, does not bind the petitioners and the said sale deed is null and
void and not binding on the petitioners. The Petitioners are in absolute
Petitioners over the suit property. The Patta is in said Jaganathan name only,
marked as Ex-A6, Patta No:URB/02/12/001/006/0012/25/0. The gas
Bill marked as Ex.A11, The Property Tax Card marked as Ex A12, The
Encumbrances certificate marked as A13, I submit that their possession

has to be protected by this Hon'ble Court by an order of permanent
injunction. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioners. The
Petitioners have therefore approached this Hon’ble Court for a Declaration
that the Petitioners are the owners of the suit property, Declaration that the
Sale Deed dated 22.07.2017 bearing Document No.2715 of 2017 SRO
Alandur executed by them in favour of the 1 st Respondent is null and void
since the sale consideration has not been paid to the Petitioners, for permanent
injunction restraining the Respondents 1 and 2 creating any encumbrances on
the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent 1
and 2 from in any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. The 3rd Respondent being the competent
Sub Registrar in respect of the suit property is imp leaded as a Respondent in
the suit in order to cull out the above violations and ensure that there are no
I therefore, pray this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass decree

and Judgment in my favour as against the defendants as follows:-
(a) Declaring that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit
property,
(b) Declaring that the Sale Deed dated 22.06.2017 registered as
Document No.2715 of 2017 SRO Alandur is null and void and not binding on
the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit property,

(c) for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 & 2 from
interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property,
(d) for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 & 2 from
alienating or creating any further encumbrances on the suit property,
(g) for costs and grant such other or further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.
This the 3rd day of Sep 2020 Before me,
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
S.No. Date Descripton Exhibits
01. 26.2.1981 Sale Deed Doc.No.376/81 . Ex-A1
02 30.5.2017 Death Certificate Ex-A2
03 13.6.2017 Legal Heir certificate Ex-A3
04 22.6.2017 Sale Deed 2715/2017 . Ex-A4
05 3.7.2017 Memorandum relating to Ex-A5
deposit of Title deeds
06 Patta Ex-A6
07 I.D Proof of 1st Plaintiff Ex-A7
08 I.D Proof of 2nd Plaintiff Ex-A8
09 I.D Proof of 3rd Plaintiff Ex-A9
10 I.D Proof of 4th Plaintiff Ex-A10

11 5.2.2020 Gas Bill Ex-A11
12 2.3.2020 Property Tax Card Ex-A12
13 Encumbrance Certificate Ex-13
IN THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AT
CHENGALPATTU
O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 others
.. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 others
.. DEFENDANTS
PLAINT
5
M/s N.RABIYA
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

7358624846
IN THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AT
CHENGALPATTU
O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 others
.. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 others
.. DEFENDANTS
PROOF AFFIDAVIT
M/s N.RABIYA

7358624846
IN THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AT
CHENGALPATTU
O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 others
.. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 others
.. DEFENDANTS
PLAINT
M/s N.RABIYA

7358624846
IN THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AT
CHENGALPATTU
I.A.No. of 2020
IN
O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 others
.. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 others
.. DEFENDANTS
Emergent Petition
M/s N.RABIYA

7358624846
IN THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AT
CHENGALPATTU
I.A.No. of 2020
IN
O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 others
.. PLAINTIFFS
- +Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 others
.. DEFENDANTS
PETITION FILED
UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1
& 2 OF CPC
M/s N.RABIYA

7358624846
IN THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AT
CHENGALPATTU
O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 others
.. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 others
.. DEFENDANTS
Doc
M/s N.RABIYA

7358624846
IN THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AT
CHENGALPATTU
O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 others
.. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 others
.. DEFENDANTS
Doc 2
M/s N.RABIYA

7358624846

I.A.No. of 2020
in
O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
Alandur.

7. I submit that since we were in a tight financial situation requiring
funds to clear the existing mortgage loan over the suit property and also
needed funds urgently for the marriage of my daughter and for my business
needs, they agreed for the offer of the 1st Respondent. I submit that the 1st
Respondent informed them that he would prepare the necessary sale deed and
documents since he would be arranging loan over the suit property with the
2nd Respondent and also clear the existing mortgage dues for the loan with
Alandur. I submit that on the very same day the 1 st Respondent had arranged
for execution of the Sale Deed in his favour as security for the loan amounts
to be given by him to us. I submit that since the 1 st Respondent had cleared
the existing loan with M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited, they
believed the words of the 1st Respondent and accordingly executed a formal
Sale Deed in favour of the 1st Respondent on 22.06.2017 registered as
8. I submit that subsequent to the registration of the Sale Deed we
asked the 1st Respondent for the loan amount of Rs.86,19,750/-. The 1 st
Respondent informed us that he has to first clear the existing loan and that he
could raise the loan amount of Rs.86,19,750/- only after mortgaging the suit
property with the 2nd Respondent and that it would take about 10 days time. I
informed the 1st Respondent that we required the funds immediately since the
marriage of the my daughter was nearing. The 1 st Respondent informed me
that he would first pay a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- and that he would pay the
remaining loan amounts within 10 days. I submit that they were paid only a
sum of Rs.13,50,000/- after execution of the above said Sale Deed in favour
of the 1st Respondent. I submit that subsequently when they contacted the 1st
the payment.
9. I submit that since the marriage of my daughter had to be performed
they utilized the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- paid by the 1st Respondent and we
were waiting for the payment of the balance loan amount. I submit that since
the 1st Respondent was constantly delaying the payment of the balance loan
amount, they obtained the copy of the Sale Deed executed by them in favour
of the 1st Respondent and found that the 1st Respondent had incorporated
consideration in the Sale Deed as though he had cleared the existing loan
M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited to the tune of Rs.36,50,000/-

and that he had paid a sum of Rs.49,19,750/- to us by way of the following
cheques,
Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,I submit that apart from the one cheque bearing
No.001727 for Rs.13,50,000/- the 1st Respondent had not issued any of the
other 4 cheques as stated in the Sale Deed. Further even though the 1 st
Respondent had promised to arrange a loan of Rs.86,19,750/- to us, he had
stealthily included the payment of Rs.36,50,000/- to M/s/Paceman Financial
India Private Limited in the consideration clause. Further the 1 st Respondent
had mortgaged the suit property to the 2 nd Respondent M/s. Orix Leasing and
Financial Services India Ltd on 03.07.2017 and taken a loan amount of
Rs.1,72,75,000/- by way of Deposit of the Title Deeds of the suit property
registered by him in favour of the 2 nd Respondent as Document No.3013 of
2017 SRO Alandur.
10. I submit that we were shocked to find this and we immediately
contacted the 1st Respondent and enquired about the same. The 1 st Respondent
promised to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.72,69,750/- within a short

time. I submit that subsequently the 1st Respondent started paying the balance
loan amounts in small amounts and totally he paid a further amount of
Rs.16,74,999/- to the Petitioners between July 2017 to April 2019. Thereafter
the 1st Respondent started to avoid meeting us. I submit that even though the
consideration in the Sale Deed executed by us as security in favour of the 1 st
Respondent was shown as Rs.86,19,750/-, the 1st Respondent had paid only a
sum of Rs.66,74,999/- to us including the amount of Rs.36,50,000/- paid to
Petitioners.
11. I submit that subsequently the 1st Respondent started to avoid the
us. I submit that only then we realized that the 1 st Respondent had cheated us
and he had taken a loan of about Rs.1,75,00,000/-on the security of the suit

13. I submit that we are the absolute owners in possession of the suit
property and the Sale Deed created by the 1 st Respondent is a fraudulent
bogus document, does not bind the petitioners and the said sale deed is null
and void and not binding on the petitioners. The Petitioners are in absolute
Petitioners over the suit property. I submit that their possession has to be
protected by this Hon'ble Court by an order of permanent injunction. The
balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have
therefore approached this Hon’ble Court for a Declaration that the Petitioners
are the owners of the suit property, Declaration that the Sale Deed dated
them in favour of the 1st Respondent is null and void since the sale
consideration has not been paid to the Petitioners, for permanent injunction
restraining the Respondents 1 and 2 creating any encumbrances on the suit
property and for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent 1 and 2
from in any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. The 3rd Respondent being the competent Sub
Registrar in respect of the suit property is imp leaded as a Respondent in the
suit in order to cull out the above violations and ensure that there are no
it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an
order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 & 2 from alienating
or creating any further encumbrances on the suit property, pending disposal
of the above suit and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chengleput Before me,
this the 3rd day of sep 2020.

and signed his name in my presence. Advocate, Chengleput

I.A.No. of 2020
in
O.S.No. of 2020
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.
Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction
restraining the respondents 1 & 2 from alienating or creating any further
encumbrances on the suit property, pending disposal of the above suit and
thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the Day of 3rd Sep 2020
Dated at Chengalpattu this the 3rd day of Sep 2020
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

CHENGALPATTU
I.A.No. of 2021
in
O.S.No. 270 of 2021

Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
Alandur.
Hence in this circumstances it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be
pleased to take up the suit urgently on the file and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Ponneri
This day of 6th July 2021 Before me,
And signed his name in my Presence.
Advocate::Chengleput
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

CHENGALPATTU
I.A.No. of 2021
in
O.S.No. 270 of 2021
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.
Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
PETITION UNDER SEC 151 OF CPC
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed
that his Hon’ble court may be pleased to take up the suit urgently
on file and thus render justice.
Dated at Chengelput on this the 12TH Day of July 2021
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

O.S.No. of 2020
Mrs.Seethalakshmi
& 3 OTHERS
.. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
A.Murugan
& 2 OTHERS .. DEFENDANTS
Dated at Chengleput on this the 6th Day of July 2021
Counsel for Plaintiff

I.A.No. 2 of 2021
in
O.S.No. 270 of 2021
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
2. Yoganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
3. Guganathan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
Chennai-600088.
.
4. Mrs.Dhanalakshmi
Wife of Jeevagan
Bharath Nagar,
Adambakkam
- Versus -
1. A.Murugan
son of Ayyadurai,,
2nd Street,
Madipakkam
Chennai – 600 091.

SP4, SIDCO,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.

Macmillan Colony
Nanganallur,
PETITION FOR ADVANCE THE HEARING

UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE C.P.C.
For the reasons states in the accompanying affidavit, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to advance the
hearing from13.9.21 to today i.e. 13.7.2021 and thus render justice.
Dated at Chengleput on this 13th day of July 2021
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

Plaint - Yoganathan 6.7.21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaint - Yoganathan 6.7.21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaint - Yoganathan 6.7.21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clean Copy

IN THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT CHENGALPATTU

2. M/s. Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd,

PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC

The Plaintiffs most respectfully submit as follows:-

1. The 1st Plaintiff is Mrs.Seethalakshmi wife of Late. Jaganathan, aged about

67 years, residing at Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar,

The 2nd Plaintiff is Yoganathan son of Late. Jaganathan, aged about 47

years, residing at Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam,

The 3rd Plaintiff is Guganathan son of Late. Jaganathan, aged about 43

years, residing Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam,

The 4th Plaintiff is Mrs.Dhanalakshmi wife of Jeevagan, aged about 34

years, residing at Plot No.77, Saraswathi St, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam,

that of their counsel M/s. N.Rabiya and Siraj at3/64,Padasalai Street,

2. The 1st Defendant is A.Murugan son of Ayyadurai, Hindu, Aged about

40 Years, residing at No.3/171, Govindasamy Nagar, 2nd Street,

Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

having their branch office at SP4, SIDCO, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate,

behind Olympia Technology Park, Guindy, Chennai – 600032, represented

No.46, 1st Main road, Macmillan Colony, Nanganallur, Chennai-600 114.

3. The Plaintiffs submit that the property bearing Plot No.77,

Saraswathi Street, Bharath Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088,

abour 2200 Sq.ft, comprised in S.No.6/2, Paimash No.389, New S.No.246/4

No.F, Block No.12 vide Approval in DTP No.165/74, in Adambakkam

village, Alandur Taluk, formerly Kancheepuram District, now Chengalpattu

District, which property is morefully described in detail in the Schedule of

property hereunder, was purchased by one Jaganathan from Mrs.Nilamangai

Thayarammal and others by Sale Deed dated 26.02.1981 registered as

Document No.376 of 1981 SRO Alandur.

property, having inherited the same from Late Jaganathan.

5. The Plaintiffs submit that they are in absolute possession and

their other financial commitments including the marriage of the 2 nd Plaintiff’s

commitments. The Plaintiffs submits that the Mortgagee Finance Company

approached their friends and relatives for financial help.

approached the Plaintiffs as a financier and offered to give financial

about Rs.2,00,00,000/- and the Plaintiffs required finance to the tune of

Rs.1,72,39,500/- with the 2nd Defendant and that he would give

property and re-convey the suit property to the Plaintiffs.

7. The Plaintiffs submit that since they were in a tight financial

M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited was cleared by the 1 st

mortgage was registered by M/s.Paceman Financial India Private Limited as

Document No.2713 of 2017 dated 22.06.2017 SRO Alandur. The Plaintiffs

formal Sale Deed in favour of the 1 st Defendant on 22.06.2017 registered as

Document No.2715 of 2017 SRO Alandur.

8. The Plaintiffs submit that subsequent to the registration of the Sale

dragging the payment.

daughter had to be performed they utilized the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- paid

to the tune of Rs.36,50,000/- and that he had paid a sum of Rs.49,69,750/- to

the Plaintiffs by way of the following cheques,

i) Rs.13,50,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001727 drawn on Axis Bank

Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,

ii) Rs.15,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001728 drawn on Axis Bank

Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,

iii) Rs.7,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001729 drawn on Axis Bank

Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,

iv) Rs.7,00,000/- by Cheque bearing No.001730 drawn on Axis Bank

Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,

v) Rs.7,19,750/- by Cheque bearing No.001731 drawn on Axis Bank

Ltd, Madipakkam Branch,

to arrange a loan of Rs.86,19,750/- to the Plaintiffs, he had stealthily included