1

DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,

PALLAVARAM

O.S NO. OF 2025

Sri. P.Balu alais Balraj,(M)(39)
Son Of Mr.Periyasamy,
No.123, P V Vaidhyalingam Road,
Old Pallavaram – 600117. …Plaintiff
Versus

1. Sri.R.Marishwaran Sivanraj,(M)(30),
No.7/124,Kamarajar Street,Thanooth,
Kulasekaramangalam,Thirunelveli – 627857.

2. The Registrar,
Pallavaram Sub Registration Office,
7th Main Road,New Colony,
Chromepet, Chennai – 600044

3. The District Registrar,

Tambaram District Registration Office,
47/8,West Tambaram,Tambaram,
Chennai - 600045.

4. The Inspector General of Registration,

No.100 Santhome High Road,Mullima Nagar,
Mandavelipakkam,Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai – 600028.

5. The Tahsildar,
Pallavaram Taluk, Chengelput District,
Kanni Koil St, Aishwarya Nagar Phase II,

Kurinji Nagar, Chromepet, Chennai – 600044. …Defendants

 2

SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF DOCUMENTS WITH PERMANENT AND

MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 26 AND ORDER VII RULE 1 AND 3

OF C.P.C

I. Description of The Plaintiff:

The Petition filed under section 26 order VII Rule 1 and 3 of C.P.C for
SUIT For Cancellation Of Documents With Permanent And Mandatory
Injunction against the respondents herein through the Advocate
K.Jayakumar (MS165/1998) and A.David Raj (MS 5608/2021), having their
office at No.33,St Patricks Complex,No.7/21 Indhira Gandhi Road,(On)
G.S.T Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600043.

II. Description of The Defendants:

The name and address of the defendants 1 to 5 for the purpose of

summons, notices, processes etc., are the same as shown above in the
cause title.

III. The above-named plaintiff respectfully submit as follows:

1. It is humbly submitted that the Plaintiff is the owner of the all that the
piece and parcel of Vacant land admeasuring 1829 Sq.Ft., comprised
in Old Survey No 304/3A Part, Town Survey No.6 in Block No.3 of Ward
B Situated at Jameen Pallavaram Village in Pallavaram Taluk under
Chengelput District lies within the Registration District of Tambaram
and sub Registration District Of Pallavaram acquired through
possession vide SLR Patta issued by the Tahsildar Pallavaram
(Annexure 1). And the same has been reconfirmed by the Tahsildar
Pallavaram on 10.01.2020 through his computerised Town Survey
Patta (Annexure 2).And till date the patta in the revenue records is in
the above plaintiff name confirms the same. (Annexure 2).
 3

2. It is humbly submitted that the Defendant No.1 approached the

Plaintiff to purchase the Vacant land admeasuring 1829 Sq.Ft.,
comprised in Old Survey No 304/3A Part, Town Survey No.6 in Block
No.3 of Ward B Situated at Jameen Pallavaram Village. But Defendant
No.1 is not having any interest to sell the above property .But due to
the heavy pressure from the Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff had agreed
to sell 616 Sq.Ft of the Property for the consideration of
Rs.10,31,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred
Only) and in the due course the Defendant No.1 informed the Plaintiff
that a portion of the property cannot be sold without the sub division
approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
(CMDA) and registering those documents is not allowed by the
Registration Authority. Hence it was agreed by both Plaintiff and
Defendant No.1 that the consideration amount will be paid to the
Plaintiff by the Defendant No.1 if the registration process is completed
successfully.

3. It is humbly submitted that the Defendant No.1 by using his influence

somehow convinced the Registering Authority to register a portion of
vacant land measuring with an extent of 616 Sq.Ft in and out from the
total extent 1829 Sq.Ft., with the approval from C M D A and informed
the plaintiff to present himself in Pallavaram Sub Registrar Office on
29th March 2019 for the Registration process .

4. It is humbly submitted in the whole process the Plaintiff was under the
impression that the sale consideration will be paid by the Defendant
No.1 at the time of Registration. But the Defendant No.1 informed the
plaintiff that he is doubtful about the completion of Registration due to
lack of C M D A approval .The sale consideration will be given once
the Registration formalities are completed .

5. It is humbly submitted that the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff had
finally completed the registration process and the Sale deed is
registered as document bearing No.2834 of 2019 on 29.03.2019 in the
 4

Sub Registrar Office of Pallavaram. And after the registration the

Plaintiff demanded the money.(Annexure 3) But the Defendant No.1
informed there is some issue with his bank he will transfer the sale
consideration before the End of the Day and take the possession of the
Land.

6. It is humbly submitted that after the Sale of the Property the

Defendant No.1 had avoided meeting the Plaintiff and also whatever
attempts the Plaintiff made to meet the Defendant No.1 was all gone
in to effortless and Defendant No.1 finally refused to accede the
genuine request of the plaintiff, the same is still continuing and till
date the plaintiff had not handed over the possession of the sold
property.

7. It is humbly submitted that the Defendant No.1 from the date of the
sale he is trying to threaten the plaintiff by using all his influences to
take the possession of the property which he had obtained wilfully by
cheating the Plaintiff.

8. It is humbly submitted that in the Sale deed document bearing

No.2834 of 2019 on 29.03.2019 registered in the Sub Registrar Office
of Pallavaram it was mentioned that the Plaintiff had received the sale
consideration Rs.10,31,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty One Thousand
Eight Hundred Only) is false .The Plaintiff had not received any cash
from the defendant No.1 since the plaintiff is pretty much aware that
receiving cash for more that Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) is
an offence under Income Tax Act. The Defendant No.1 took advantage
of the innocence and inability in reading the Tamil document by the
Plaintiff, the defendant No.1 had illegally, unlawfully, fraudulently, by
way of forgery and fraud had obtained this Sale deed without paying
the sale consideration till date.

9. It is humbly submitted that neither the Cash which is claimed as given

by the Defendant No.1 is not before any Registering Authority or there
 5

is no direct witness to confirm that the Plaintiff had received the cash
from the Defendant No.1.

10. It is humbly submitted that the Defendant No 1 Purchased the suit

schedule property and did not pay Sale Consideration to the plaintiff
as mentioned in the Sale Deed.

11. It id humbly submitted that the above-stated entries, mutation, sale

deed, and all type of transactions and alienation are unjust, illegal,
unauthorized, void, null, void ab-initio and are the result of
misrepresentation, forgery, fraud, malice and ulterior and are in effect
upon the rights of the plaintiff and are liable to be set-aside, cancelled,
corrected, according to the actual ownership of the plaintiff in
mentioned schedule.

12. That a glaring fraud is spelled out from a cursory glance of the
relevant documents, hence the mutations, etc are liable to be
cancelled, set-aside, and corrected in accordance with the law.

13. That the said act on the part of the registering authorities without
confirming whether the plaintiff had received the Sale Consideration
and also without proper approval from C M D A for the Sub Division is
depriving the rights of plaintiff of his valuable Suit Property.

IV. Cause of action

14. That the cause of action firstly accrued when the Defendant No.1
committed fraud, forgery, misrepresentation and registered the sale deed
without paying any consideration to the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1
finally refused to accede the genuine request of the plaintiff, the same is
still continuing .

V. Limitation
 6

15. The limitation period begins when the plaintiff becomes aware of the
sale deed. If the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale deed execution, the
limitation period for challenging it would typically be three years under
Article 59, unless the deed is void Ramti Devi VS Union Of India - Supreme
Court.

VI. Declaration

16. The Plaintiff did not institute any suit earlier and no suit is pending in
respect of the suit schedule property for the similar relief in any court.

VII. Jurisdiction

17. That the property is situated within the territorial limits of this
Honorable Court, cause of action also accrued here, the revenue
authorities fall under the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, hence this
Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the
matter.

VIII. Court Fee:

18. The suit for cancellation of documents for the purpose of court fee
and jurisdiction, the total sale consideration for the suit schedule property
of Sale Deed dated 29th March 2019 is Rs.10,31,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakh
Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred Only) the suit is valued on which a
court fees of Rs. __________________/- is paid under the section ___________
of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and suit Valuation Act _______. Likewise for
the relief of restrain order form changing the nature of the property is also
valued at Rs. ____________/- notional value of land and a fixed fee of Rs
____________/- is paid under section ________ of suit valuation Act
_____________. Court Fee of Rs _________/- is paid vide
____________________and the same is paid is sufficient.

20. That the plaintiff is ready to affix the appropriate Court fee,
however, Rs. _____________/- is affixed upon the plaint.

PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY

 7

PRAYER

In view of the above, it is most humbly prayed that:

1. A decree for declaration of null and Void in a suit for cancellation of

documents to the effect that the plaintiff is an owner in possession of all
that the piece and parcel of Vacant land admeasuring 616 Sq.Ft in and out
of 1829 Sq.Ft., comprised in Old Survey No 304/3A Part, Town Survey
No.6 in Block No.3 of Ward B Situated at Jameen Pallavaram Village in
Pallavaram Taluk under Chengelput District lies within the Registration
District of Tambaram and sub Registration District Of Pallavaram
whatsoever with the suit land and all the subsequent entries, mutation,
sale deeds, against the rights of the plaintiff are illegal, unjust, un-
authorize, null, void- void-ab-initio, without any lawful justification and are
result of forgery, fraud and dishonestly, and are ineffective upon the
rights of the plaintiff and are nullity in the eye of law and are liable to be
set-aside, cancelled and corrected according to the rights of the plaintiff
and are only to deprive the plaintiff from his valuable rights and property.

2. A decree for a mandatory injunction in this suit for cancellation of

documents directing the defendants No. 2 and 5 authorities to correct the
record in the light of the submissions made in the main suit.

3. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant’s No. 1

to claim any right title, interest, and concern whatsoever in the suit land
and further transfer the land on the basis of above said mutations/
attorney/ sale deed/ entries, etc in favour of any person.

4. Further prayed that the defendants No. 1 may also please be

restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff
dispossessing him, raising any sort of construction and changing the
nature of the suit property in any manner whatsoever may kindly be
passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

5. Any other relief, which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper
may also be granted to the plaintiffs.
 8

Plaintiff

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Verification

I, Sri. P.Balu alais Balraj,(M)(39) Son Of Mr.Periyasamy, No.123, P V

Vaidhyalingam Road, Old Pallavaram – 600117.
the above named Plaintiff do hereby declare the contents mentioned
against the para No 1 to 17 are true and correct and the contents
mentioned against are based on the facts which I believe to be true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Hence verified on this 12th day Feburary, 2025

Plaintiff

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Annexure I

Annexure 2

Annexure 3