High Court · 2025

Crp.No.116 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 04.02.2025 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHAC.R.P.No.116 of 2025C.M.P.No.866 of 20251.Shanthi2.V.Ramesh...PetitionersVs.Vasanthi...RespondentPRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the Fair and decreetal order dated 06.11.2024 passed in IA.No.4 of 2024 in OS.No.90 of 2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Court at Poonamallee.For Petitioners: Mr.J.Arun PrasadFor Respondent: 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crp.No.116 of 2025ORDERAggrieved by the rejection of their petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 A r/w Section 151 CPC the defendants are before this Court. 2.The facts are briefly set out herein below:-The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.90 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, Poonamallee for a partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and for injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit schedule property in any manner in contrast with the preemptive right of the plaintiff and for mesne profits. The plaintiff and defendants are siblings. The first item of property was purchased by plaintiff’s father G.Varadan out of his self earned money under a registered sale deed dated 16.02.1984. The second item of property was also purchased by plaintiff’s father Varadan under a registered sale deed dated 25.10.1993. The plaintiff's contention is that these properties were purchased out of self earnings of their father and it was his absolute property. On the death of their father intestate on 16.11.2005, the plaintiff and the defendants became entitled to equal share in the property since their mother Kamatchi had 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crp.No.116 of 2025predeceased their father on 09.10.1989. The plaintiff would submit that the first defendant being the elder daughter was permitted to received the rents. However, she has not shared the same with her siblings. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question. 3.The first defendant had filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties. She would further contend that already a partition had been entered into between the family members on 25.03.2010 and suppressing the said partition the present suit has been filed and the same is not maintainable. The first defendant would submit that the partition was effected vide a koorchit partition deed dated 25.03.2010 under which all of them were to get an equal share in the property. The A schedule property in the said koorchit was allotted to the share of the first defendant. B schedule property to the plaintiff and C schedule property to her brother, the second defendant. After the partition each of them have been enjoying the property as set out in the koor chit. The first defendant has thereafter constructed a small shop and residential house in the share allotted to her. In exercise of her right as owner of the property she has also let out a portion of the shop to one Y.Abdul Gani in the year 2001.The said Abdul 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crp.No.116 of 2025Gani was running a cycle shop in the said premises for the last eleven years. The suit filed by the Abdul Gani against the first defendant and her husband which would go to show that the property had been leased out by them to him. Therefore, she sought for a dismissal of the suit in question. The written statement was filed on 24.07.2023. 4.The second defendant was also entered appearance through the very same counsel and filed a written statement reiterating the case of the parties about having entered into a partition in the form of koorchit partition deed dated 25.03.2010. This written statement was filed on 15.06.2023.5.Thereafter the defendants had come forward with the petition to reject the plaint in I.A.No.4 of 2024. The only ground on which the suit was sought to be rejected is that it does not disclose any cause of action since the property had been partitioned vide koor chit partition deed dated 25.03.2010.6.The said application was resisted by the first petitioner herein inter alia denying the alleged koor chit partition deed and stating that no partition had taken 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crp.No.116 of 2025place. The first petitioner would clearly state that the signature contained in the said koor chit is a forgery and is not her signature. In fact even prior to the institution of the suit the first petitioner had sent a legal notice for which there was no reply and she would state that thereafter koor chit has been prepared. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, by his order dated 06.11.2024 was pleased to dismiss the said application. The learned Judge had rejected the application on the ground that the partition koor chit which was the main fulcrum of the respondent's case has been denied by the petitioners and therefore evidence has to be let in with reference to the same and since the plaint discloses a cause of action the same cannot be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.8.As rightly held by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, once the petitioners deny the koor chit the same has to be proved in evidence and therefore there cannot be a rejection of the plaint at this stage. That apart, as has been held by him and again while considering a petition under the 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crp.No.116 of 2025provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, the contents of the plaint has to be taken into account. Once the plaint makes out a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected on the defense taken particularly when the said defense has to be proved in trial. I see no reason to disagree with the order of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court at Poonamallee in IA.No.4 of 2024 in OS.No.90 of 2022.9.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.02.2025epIndex: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non Speaking OrderToThe III Additional District and Sessions Court,Poonamallee.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crp.No.116 of 2025P.T.ASHA, J.,epC.R.P.No.116 of 2025C.M.P.No.866 of 2025 04 .02.20257/7