[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ramesh vs Venkatesh on 20 April, 2026
CRP No. 2137 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
18.03.2026 20.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CRP No. 2137 of 2020
and CMP.No.13559 of 2020
Ramesh
S/o. (late) Radhakrishnan Naidu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Venkatesh
(Quondam Minor) (Declared as major in
I.A.No.489/2010, Dt.21.02.2011)
T.Radhakrishna Naidu (Died)
Lrs already on record
2. T. Ramachandran (Died)
S/o. Thambiah Naidu.
3. T. Govindaraj
S/o. Thambiah Naidu.
4. R. Jayachandra Mouli
S/o. Mr. Radhakrishnan Naidu.
5. Rangarajan
Chairman, Veltech Group Of Companies,
Residing at No.38, A.B.M. Avenue,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.
6. Sujatha
W/o. Rajasekar.
7. A. Nagabhushanam
Rojammal (died) L.R.S. already On Record.
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 2137 of 2020
8. A. Janardhanam
S/o. Ankamma Naidu.
9. A. Nagasami
S/o. Ankamma Naidu.
10.R.Vasumathi
D/O.T.Ramachandran.
11.R.Chamundeeswari
D/O.T.Ramachandran.
(Respondent-2 Died.
Respondents 10 and 11 brought on record as
LRs of the deceased R-2 Viz
T.Ramachandran vide court order
dated.24/01/2023 made in CMP No.1409 of
2023 in CRP No.2137 of 2020).
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 18.03.2020 made in
IA No.3 of 2020 in OS No.10 of 2006 on the file of Additional District Court- I,
Thiruvallur.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Haja Nazirudeen
Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.P.Haribabu
For Respondent(s): Mr.Dhanaram Ramachandran for R1
for M/s.D.R.law Chambers
R2 - Died (steps Taken)
RR-3 to 7 & 9 – No appearance
RR8, 10 & 11 – Not ready in notice
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 2137 of 2020
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 18.03.2020 made in IA No.3 of 2020 in OS No.10 of 2006 on the file of
Additional District Court- I, Thiruvallur.
2. Heard Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.P.Haribabu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Dhanaram
Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for M/s.D.R.law Chambers on
behalf of the first respondent. Appearance of the other respondents are
considered not necessary as the present lis with regard to a rejection of Order
VII Rule 7 application in respect of their suit that has been filed by the first
respondent alone.
3. Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner would submit that in a suit filed by the first Respondent for partition,
the Petitioner had been arrayed as the 7th Defendant. The first Respondent is
the son of the 4th Defendant in the suit, who had a strained relationship with
the mother of the first Respondent, and the marriage was also dissolved by way
of a decree of divorce granted as early as in the year 2004.
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. He would submit that the first Respondent/Plaintiff does not have any
right in the property shown in the suit-scheduled property. Apart from that, he
had not described the suit property by its metes and bounds. The first
Respondent initiated the suit without any cause of action for the reliefs that had
been sought for, and the suit is nothing but a fishing expedition.
5. He would further submit that even assuming that the decree is granted
in favour of the first Respondent, as there is no description as required under
Order VII, Rule 3, the decree becomes un-executable. He would submit that
the first Respondent was not in joint possession of the property, and therefore,
the suit itself has also not been valued properly. Hence, he had taken out an
application to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, and the same came to
be dismissed, holding that there are triable issues as the Plaintiff made out a
cause of action.
6. As regards the payment of court fee, without giving a finding as to
whether the first Respondent was in possession of the property by way of
constructive possession, it was held that the suit had been properly valued. He
would submit that the findings rendered on both the issues are without
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appreciation of the facts, more particularly on the plaint averments, and
therefore seeks indulgence of this Court.
7. Countering his argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the first Respondent/Plaintiff, would contend that the first Respondent initiated
a suit in respect of the properties of which he is a co-parcener, as the properties
devolved on the parties to the suit by way of inheritance of the ancestral
properties. He would submit that just because his mother, who was the wife of
the fourth Defendant, had suffered a decree of divorce, the right of the first
Respondent, who is the son of the fourth Defendant, cannot be negatived
without a full-fledged trial.
8. He would submit that nowhere the Petitioner or the other Defendants
had disputed the relationship of the first Respondent with the fourth Defendant,
and that a DNA report had also confirmed that the first Respondent/Plaintiff is
the son of the fourth Defendant. He would further submit that even assuming
that there was a deficit court fee, the same could also be rectified at the end of
the trial, if the Court comes to the finding that the first Respondent was not in
constructive possession, and could be directed to deposit the court fee.
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Hence, he would submit that on both the grounds that had been raised
by the Petitioner, who was the 7th Defendant, do not deserve consideration,
and the court below had rightly rejected the same. He would further submit
that the attempt is nothing but a ruse to protract the proceedings to defeat the
valuable rights of the first Respondent/Plaintiff, hence he seeks dismissal of
the revision.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11. Admittedly, in a suit for partition, an application to reject the plaint
had been taken out on the premise that the Plaintiff had not made out a cause
of action for the reliefs that had been claimed for. The suit had been under
valued and the property had not been described for the decree to be executed.
12. As rightly pointed out by the learned. Counsel appearing for the
Respondent, if the constructive possession of the first Respondent had been
disproved, even then, the first Respondent/Plaintiff can be called upon by the
Court to make good the deficit court fee, only upon which the decree would be
drafted. It is also to be noted that the court below had given a categorical
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
finding that from the averments made in the plaint, there is a claim for
constructive possession. Therefore, based upon the pleadings in the written
statement or in the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, the averments in
the plaint cannot be disregarded to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11.
13. The relationship between the parties cannot also now been gone into
as the fourth Defendant, who is the father of the Plaintiff, had not disputed the
paternity. The seventh defendant/ petitioner, who is the brother of the 4th
Defendant, cannot be allowed to dispute the same. The court below had also
given a categorical finding that on the basis of the suit averments, the Plaintiff
is presumed to be in joint constructive possession of the suit property, and
there has been sufficient compliance of Order VII, Rule 3.
14. A reading of the plaint also would indicate there is sufficient cause
of action to be proceeded with, and for the averments made in the written
statement and the application under Order VII Rule 11, the plaint cannot be
rejected, as it is a trite law that a plaint could be rejected only based on the
averments made in the plaint and not otherwise.
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any material error
in the impugned order and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
20.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
To
1. The Additional District Court- I, Thiruvallur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
20.04.2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
