Madras High Court
M.Jamal Mohaideen (Died) vs Abidal Beevi (Died) on 19 September, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
AS(MD). No.159 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
AS. (MD). No.159 of 2016
and CMP(MD) No.10315 of 2016
1.M.Jamal Mohaideen (died)
2.Mustrijan Begum
3.J.Jaifun
4.M.J.Sheerin Banu
5.M.J.Yasmine
6.M.J.Farook
7.M.J.Shabeer
8.M.J.Kaleel Ahamed ... Appellants
(Appellants 3 to 8 were brought on record as LRs of the deceased
1st appellant vide order dated 06.12.2024 in CMP Nos.10156,
10159, 10160 of 2019, 34 of 2021, 9748 and 9749 of 2023)
Vs
1.Abidal Beevi (died)
2.Ayesha Mariyam
3.Mohamed Nasurdeen
4.Basheer Ahamed
5.Naseera Banu
6.Barveen Banu
7.Mumthaj Begum
8.Jafarullah Khan
9.Mubarak
10.Akbar
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
AS(MD). No.159 of 2016
11.Nageera
12.Anverdeen
13.KAdar Ali
14.Salma Beevi
15.Dhilsath Begum
16.Sowrammal (died)
17.Sikkender
18.Kaja
19.Fakrudeen
20.Badhusha
21.Mohamed Sha
22.A.Alaudeen
23.M.Ashak Ali Bathusha
24.A.Aseela
25.Imran Khan
26.P.Chinnadurai
27.Peer Ubayathulla
28.Fathima Semina
29.Bhima
30.K.Azhar Mohideen
31.Shajini
32.Yasmin ... Respondents
(R23 died and R7 who is already on record is recorded as LR of the
deceased R23 vide order dated 06.12.2024 in CMP(MD) No. 10156,
10159, 10160 of 2019, 34 of 2021, 9748 and 9749 of 2023)
Respondents 24 and 25 are also brought on record as LRs of the deceased
23rd respondent vide common order dated 06.12.2024 in CMP(MD) Nos.
10156,10159, 10160 of 2019, 34 of 2021, 9748 and 9749 of 2023)
Respondents 26 to 29 are also brought on record as LRs of the deceased
16th respondent vide common order dated 06.12.2024 in CMP(MD) Nos.
10156,10159, 10160 of 2019, 34 of 2021, 9748 and 9749 of 2023)
Respondents 30 to 32 are also brought on record as LRs of the deceased
1st respondent vide common order dated 06.12.2024 in CMP(MD) Nos.
10156,10159, 10160 of 2019, 34 of 2021, 9748 and 9749 of 2023)
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
AS(MD). No.159 of 2016
PRAYER :-Appeal suit filed under section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated
01.02.2016 in OS No.34 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional District
Court, Madurai.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior counsel for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan for R2 to R6 &
R30 to R32
R1,R16 and R23 died
R24 to R29 batta not filed
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
First, second and third plaintiffs in OS No.34/2014 on the file of
the 4th Additional District Court at Madurai are the appellants herein. OS
No.34/2014 has been filed seeking a judgment and decree against the
defendants for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
properties.
2. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have also given the
description of the properties and they have also appended the genealogy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
table and more specifically, the plaintiffs have also given the list of
documents as required under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. A perusal of the original plaint reveals that in that list, they
had mentioned 18 documents. Thereafter summons had been served on
the defendants and counsels entered appearance for 1-6th defendants and
also for 16th defendant. The 7-15th defendants, 17-22 defendants
remained exparte. The defendants for whom the counsels entered
appearance, did not file their written statements.
3. The learned District Judge then proceeded to record the
evidence of P.W.1. Proof affidavit was filed by P.W.1 and in the proof
affidavit, the list of documents relied on was mentioned. P.W.1 had
relied on eighteen documents as stated in the plaint and also one further
document, namely, the reply notice given by the 2-7th defendants. P.W.1
grazed the witness box and identified the documents and Ex.A1 to A18
were also marked. The matter was then adjourned for cross-examination
on behalf of the defendants. The marking of the documents by P.W.1
was on 30.10.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
4. On 01.02.2016, the learned District Judge passed the judgment,
wherein, he had observed that though the plaintiffs have stated that the
title documents are with the defendants, they had not stated the
particulars of the title documents. It was further stated in the judgment
that the plaintiffs are bound to produce all the documents relating to the
cause of action but the plaintiffs had only produed the patta with respect
to the suit properties and that the patta was not sufficient to hold that the
suit properties belonged to the ancestor, Mohideen Rawther.
5. The learned District Judge then examined Order VII Rule 14 of
the Code of Civil Procedure and stated that if the plaintiffs were not in
possession of the title documents and if those documents were registered
documents, then the plaintiffs should have filed the registration copies. It
was further observed that no explanation had been given for not filing the
registration copies of the documents as provided under Order VII Rule
14(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. The learned Judge then relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2012 (4) CTC 308 (Church of Christ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
Charitable and Educational Charitable Society represented by
Chairman v. Ponmamman Educational Trust represented by
Chairperson/Managing Trustee and proceeded to reject the suit under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. We are constrained to point out that Order VII Rule 11(d) of the
Code relates to rejection of a plaint when it is barred by law. In the
judgment referred by the learned District Judge, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had found that the list of documents was not appended at all with
the plaint.
8. In the instant case, the plaintiffs had given the list of 18
documents under Order VII Rule 14(1) of the Code and they had also
filed all the documents and the documents were marked as Ex.A1 to
Ex.A18 during the course of trial. The learned District Judge had relied
on a judgment, which related to a case where no list of documents had
been filed. The learned District Judge had failed to note that the
plaintiffs had produced the documents. The matter was posted for cross-
examination on behalf of the defendants. Even if the defendants had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
set exparte, they had a right to cross-examine the witness, who tendered
on behalf of the plaintiffs.
9. We hold that the suit should not have been rejected at the
threshold, particularly, after evidence had been recorded. We hold that
the rejection of the suit on the ground that it was barred under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the Code is not proper.
10. We therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned District
Judge dated 01.02.2016 in OS No.34/2014 and remand the matter for
fresh consideration before the IV Additional District Court, Madurai. The
matter is remanded back at the stage of completion of chief-examination
of P.W.1. If the defendants choose, they could participate in the trial
proceedings. They may also choose not to participate in the trial
proceedings. However, a responsibility is cast on the Presiding Officer
to examine the matter on merits in accordance with law and proceed
further.
5. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit stands allowed. Registry is
directed to return the original records received from the Court below
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
back to the IV Additional District Court, Madurai on or before
14.10.2025. The plaintiffs and the defendants are directed to appear
before the IV Additional District Court on 17.10.2025. No costs.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[C.V.K,J] [R.V,J]
19.09.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
To
1.IV Additional District Judge, Madurai.
2.VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RR
ORDER
IN
Date : 19.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 12:44:13 pm )
