Madras High Court
Sathish vs Dr.S. Prithviraj on 23 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :23.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P. No. 374 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.3068 of 2023
Sathish ...Petitioner
.Vs.
1. Dr.S. Prithviraj
2. S. Tejaswini ...Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated
05.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.03 of 2021 in O.S.No.2216 of 2020 on the file
of the VII Additional, City Civil Court, Chennai and pass orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P. Ravi Shankar Rao
For Respondent : Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This petition is filed to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order
dated 05.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.03 of 2021 in O.S.No.2216 of 2020 on
the file of the VII Additional, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner has filed a petition in
I.A.No.03 of 2021 in O.S.No.2216 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11 of
C.P.C to reject the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.2216 of 2020 and the same
was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2023 . Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first
respondent has filed the suit and from the averments in the plaint, it is seen
that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case and his real intention
is to harass the petitioner. He further submits that the suit is also liable to be
rejected on the ground that a grandson cannot seek for partition of his
grandfathers self acquired property. The above aspects has not been
considered by the learned Judge, Court below and he has mechanically
dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner. Hence he prays to allow this
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court
below has gone into each and every aspects in detail and passed the
impugned order, which does not require interference by this Court. Hence
he prays to dismiss this petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of S.A.No.273 of 2014, Govindan and
Another Vs. Revathi and others reported in (2019) 8 MLG 600 LNIDN
2019 MAD 7232, wherein it has been held that a property that is inherited
by a Hindu on the death of his father after 1956 as a class I heir under
Section 8, will not partake the character of co-parcenary property qua his
children. Hence, he will be the absolute owner of the property and he have
absolute power of alienation over the property and the plaintiff has no right
over the property.
6. On a perusal of the impugned order, the learned Judge has made
an observation that since the suit is filed for partition and permanent
injunction the same could be decided only after a full fledged trial and only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
then the controversy can be decided after evidence is adduced by both sides.
The petitioner herein to substantiate his case has to produce any material
documents or oral evidence. The said finding of the learned Judge is
perfectly valid in the eye of law and the same cannot be brushed aside
easily. Hence, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this
Court.
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the order passed in I.A.No.03 of 2021 in O.S.No.2216 of 2020 on the file of
the VII Additional, City Civil Court, Chennai and the same is hereby
confirmed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.08.2023
smn
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To.
1. The VII Additional, City Civil Court, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
Smn
C.R.P. No. 374 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.3068 of 2023
23.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
