Madras High Court

Rani vs Page 1 / on 20 February, 2025

Author: N. Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

A.S..No.149 of 2022

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date :20.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

A.S.No.149 of 2022 & CMP.No.5676 of 2022

1. Rani
2. Murugan
3. Saravanan
4. Palaniammal
5. Minor Parimala
Rep. by guardian and next friend
her grandmother Kasthuri
6. Kottaiammal
7. Kasthuri
8. Alamelu
9. Ponniammal
10. Chinnaponnu
11. Tallammal
12. Subbuammal
13. Govindaraj
14. Mohan
15. Sulochana
16. Muniyan
17. Ramamoorthy
18. Krishnamoorthy ... Appellants

Versus

Page 1 / 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S..No.149 of 2022

1. Vasanthakumari
2. Vijayakumari ... Respondents

PRAYER : This Appeal Suit has been filed under section 96 of Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the Order and Decreetal Order dated 09.12.2021 made
in I.A.No.1368 of 2018 in O.S.No.301 of 2018 on the file of the Court of
Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpet by allowing this regular
first appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran

For Respondents : Mr.V.V.Sathya – R1

No appearance – R2

JUDGMENT

Challenging the Order of the trial Court in rejecting the plaint, the

present Appeal came to be filed.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.301 of 2018 for the

following reliefs :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

i. To declare the plaintiffs' title and for consequential

relief of to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit

schedule mentioned property.

ii. To declare the partition deed dated 10.09.1988 which

was registered on 10.10.1998 as document No.1285 of 1988

which was done between t he defendants' father Thiru Adhiappa

Reddiar and Thiru Narasa Reddiar in respect of the suit

schedule mentioned property which is falled in 'A' schedule

mentioned properties of Thiru Adhiappa Reddiar as null and

void;

iii. To declare the partition deed dated 17.07.2000 which

was registered on 28.08.2000 as document No.1091 of 2000

which was done between the defendants' father Thiru Adhiappa

Reddiar and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule

mentioned property which fell in 'C' schedule of the first

defendant as null and void;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

iv. To directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit

and to pass other suitable relief or reliefs;

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :

An extent of 3 acres in Survey No.189/1 has been owned by one

Saravana Pillai and Nataraja Pillai which was purchased by one

Parvathiammal vide sale deed dated 17.01.1963 and and she has settled the

property in favour of the plaintiffs 17 and 18 on 15.06.1978. However, the

defendants while dividing the property on 21.04.1994, instead of survey

No.189/1, survey No.188/1 has been wrongly mentioned at the instance of one

Srinivasa Pillai. Later the defendants have partitioned the property including

the plaintiff's property in survey No.188/1. Hence, the plaintiff has sought

declaration and also cancellation of consequent documents.

4. An application has been taken out by the defendants to reject the

plaint on the ground that the property in survey No.189/1 is the ancestral

property of the defendants and the property was originally partitioned between

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Athiyappa Reddiar and Narasa Reddiar and the suit property has been allotted

to Athiyappa Reddiar and patta has also been given in their name. That apart

a suit in O.S.No.265 of 2004 has been filed by the first defendant against one

Srinivasa Masthri and plaintiffs 12 to 15. Therefore, sought to reject the

plaint.

5. The trial Court considering the submissions on either side, holding

that partition has been taken place more than 30 years back and hence,

presumption can be drawn against plaintiffs and the fact that there was an

earlier suit filed by the first defendant against one Srinivasa Mesthri and the

plaintiffs 12 to 15, rejected the plaint.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the

learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused entire materials

available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants that the documents of the year 1963 and 1978 clearly show that the

ancestors of the plaintiff had purchased the suit property. Since the said survey

was wrongly mentioned in a partition deed entered between the family

members of the defendants, the same has been taken advantage and they

included that survey number in the partition deed executed between the family

members of the defendants. Therefore, submitted that these are matter of

evidence and the same has to be decided only in the suit.

8. Whereas, the leaned counsel appearing for the respondents would

submit that the earlier suit in O.S.No.265 of 2004 filed for declaration and

injunction has been decreed exparte in favour of the first defendant and others

and the defendants themselves admitted that the survey No.188/1 mentioned in

their partition deed do not belong to their family. Now it is too late to seek

declaration of title and also to cancel the documents which have been executed

thirty years back.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9. In the light of the above submissions, the point that arise for

consideration is

Whether the trial Court is right in rejecting the plaint

merely on the basis of the application filed by the defendant.

10. Point :

The plaint can be rejected only on the grounds set out under Order VII

Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows :

Rejection of plaint.

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the

plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation

within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the

plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite

stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do

so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint

to be barred by any law:

[e] Where it is not filed in duplicate

[f] Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions

of Rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the

correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-

paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be

recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any

cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or

supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within

the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time

would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11. When there are disputed facts, the suit cannot be rejected merely on

the basis of the application filed by the defendants or on the basis of the

allegations in the written statement. The Court has to see whether there is

cause of action in the plaint and its documents. The cause of action is bundle

of facts. Therefore, merely because the defendants have filed an application,

that itself cannot be a ground to reject the plaint, particularly when there are

disputed facts writ large in the pleadings.

12. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that the survey No.188/1

belong to them which is the subject matter of the property purchased under the

sale deed of the year 1963. The said document has also been filed along with

the plaint documents. Whereas, the defendants had set up title only on the

basis of the partition deed entered between themselves. In such view of the