Madras High Court
Iyyamperumal Gounder vs Arumuga Gounder on 21 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 14.11.2025 Order pronounced on : 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
A.S.No.212 of 2024
& CMP.No.7577 of 2024
Iyyamperumal Gounder ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Arumuga Gounder
2.Kulandhai Ammal
3.Perumal
S/o. Arumuga Gounder
4.Perumal
S/o.Iyyamperumal Gounder
5.Mariammal
6.The District Collector,
Salem District,
Having office at Collectorate Campus,
Salem – 636 001.
7.The Registrar General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Having office at Santhom High Road,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai – 600 082.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 12:39:57 pm )
8.The District Registrar,
Salem West,
Having office at Salem Collectorate Campus,
Salem – 636 001.
9.The Sub Registrar,
Jalagandapuram,
Jalagandapuram Sub-Registrar office,
Jalagandapuram (Post),
Mettur Taluk,
Salem – 636 501. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI of CPC, 1908, to
set aside the order dated 12.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.291 of 2023 on the
file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mettur.
For Appellant : Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondents : Mr.P.Veeraraghavan for RR1 to 3
Mr.G.Nanmaran
Special Government Pleader for RR6 to 9
No appearance for RR4 & 5
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.291 of 2023 before the
learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mettur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 12:39:57 pm )
2.The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession
and also for a relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff, pending the suit,
filed an application in I.A.No.7 of 2023, for impleading certain third parties
as defendants. The said application was enquired into and orders were
reserved. At that point of time, the Court, finding that the plaint was liable
to be rejected, suo motu, proceeded to reject the plaint. The said order of
rejection of the plaint is under challenge in this first appeal.
3.I have heard Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston, for M/s.Sarvabauman
Associates, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.Veeraraghavan,
learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondents 6 to 9.
4.Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the trial Court was not entitled to suo motu invoke the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and reject the plaint, that too, when
there was not even an application taken out by any of the defendants,
seeking rejection of the plaint. He would further submit that even assuming
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 12:39:57 pm )
the trial Court found that the plaint was not maintainable, the trial Court
ought to have given an opportunity to the plaintiff to argue on the
maintainability and without even giving an opportunity to the plaintiff and
that too, after having reserved orders in an application to implead the
proposed parties, the trial Court clearly erred in proceeding to reject the
plaint. He would therefore pray that the parties would have to be necessarily
relegated to a full fledged trial and the order of the trial Court has to be set
aside.
5.Per contra, Mr.P.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the
respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the trial Court has passed a well
considered order, giving elaborate reasons as to why the plaint is liable to be
rejected and the order does not require any interference in appeal.
6.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the only that arises
for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the trial Court was justified
in exercising a suo motu power to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11
of CPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 12:39:57 pm )
7.The plaintiff, claiming that the suit property was originally
belonging to Anakuttai Gounder and that he was blessed with four sons, out
of which, three sons died without legal heirs and the plaintiff's father,
Iyyamperumal Gounder became entitled to the suit property and consequent
to his demise, the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5, being his sons and
daughter, are entitled to share in the suit property, had filed the suit. The
plaintiff has also challenged the documents created by the 1st defendant,
along with the defendants 2 and 3.
8.The 3rd defendant had filed his written statement and even before
issues were framed in the suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.7 of 2023 to
implead subsequent transferees, as defendants in the suit. The said
application was enquired into and orders were reserved by the trial Court.
While disposing of the application for impleadment, the trial Court, without
discussing the merits and demerits of the impleading application, has
straight away proceeded to reject the plaint, that too, relying on the
documents filed by the defendants 1 to 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 12:39:57 pm )
9.The said order of the trial Court does not stand the scrutiny of law
even for a moment. Firstly, in the absence of an application filed by the
defendants, invoking any of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, the trial Court
ought not to have ventured to test the plaint with regard to its
maintainability. Secondly, the trial Court could not have relied on the
documents filed by the defendants 1 to 3, merely because they are registered
documents. It is settled law that in an application for rejection of plaint, it is
only the plaint averments and allegations and the documents filed along
with the plaint which can be considered. Clearly, in the present case, the
trial Court has exceeded its power and jurisdiction, warranting interference
in the first appeal. The point is answered in favour of the appellant.
10.In fine, the Appeal Suit is allowed. The order dated 12.01.2024
passed in O.S.No.291 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional District
Judge, Fast Track Court, Mettur, is set aside and the suit is O.S.No.291 of
2023 restored to file. The trial Court shall decide I.A.No.7 of 2023, on
merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 12:39:57 pm )
this order and subject to the result of the said application, the suit shall be
proceeded with on merits and in accordance with law and the same shall be
disposed of on merits. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the
way of the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint, invoking Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC on any available grounds. There shall be no order as to
costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.11.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
To
1.The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mettur.
2.The District Collector,
Salem District,
Having office at Collectorate Campus,
Salem – 636 001.
3.The Registrar General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Having office at Santhom High Road,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai – 600 082.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 12:39:57 pm )
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 12:39:57 pm )
