Disposed

Jayamma v. Lakshmamma

Madras HC21 Sept 2021CRP/2000/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed a Principal District Judge to dispose of a plaint that had been repeatedly returned due to objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, and court fees, rather than issuing multiple returns.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, to pass appropriate orders on the plaint.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

C.R.P.No.2000 of 2021

¶6

Jayamma

¶7

 ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs

¶9

1.Lakshmamma
2.T.Rajendra
3.Dhanalakshmi
4.Aruna
5.Karthick
6.Indirani
7.T.Srinivasan
8.Lakshmi Narayanan
9.Muniratha
10.Praba @ Prabavathi
11.M.Ramamani
12.R.Varalakshmi
13.V.Sivarudhrappa
14.C.Abbaiah
15.S.Sakthivel
16.N.Manjunath
17.M.Munivenkatappa
18.Gnanasekar
19.Murugesh
20.Nagamma ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the Learned Principal
District Judge at Krishnagiri to number the Suit filed in
Unnumbered O.S.No.SR550 of 2021 by allowing the present Civil
Revision Petition.

¶11

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Jayaprakash.

Jayamma Vs Lakshmamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶15

2.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that
the Petitioner filed the aforesaid Suit seeking partition of the
Suit schedule property into five equal shares and allot 1/5th
share. There are also other reliefs seeking to declare the
partition deed dated 30.09.2010 as null and void and sale deeds
and gift deeds to be declared as null and void executed from the
year 2010 to 2021.

¶16

3.The Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, on
02.09.2021, on going through the plaint averments found that the
Petitioner is a party to the Partition deed dated 30.09.2010 and
made a return stating that when the Petitioner is a party to the
Partition deed, how can she maintain the Suit, after a period of
eleven years. It is replied by the Petitioner that she came to
know about the registered Partition deed dated 30.09.2010 only
on 10.08.2021 and therefore, the Suit is filed in time. There
are other returns as well with regard to payment of Court-fee
and that was also answered. The grievance of the Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Court has no right to
make such return, especially when the earlier return was
complied by giving reasons for filing the Suit.

¶17

4.Considered the submissions made by the Learned Counsel
for the Petitioner. It is seen that the plaint was returned
indicating the Petitioner cannot maintain the Suit when she is a
party to the Partition deed dated 30.09.2010 and after eleven
years executing the Partition deed. There are other grounds
with regard to payment of Court-fee under Section 40 of the
Tamil Nadu Court Fee Act.

¶18

5.Of course, the Court is entitled to make these returns.
However, once returns have been complied stating the
Petitioner's position, then, it is for the Court to take a
decision to number the plaint, when there is proper cause of
action and when it is not barred by any law and when the Suit is
properly valued and proper Court-fee is paid. Otherwise, if the
plaint falls under any of the grounds for rejection of plaint

¶20

under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, the Learned
Judge is entitled to reject the plaint. Repeated return of the
plaint is not a solution to the issue. Therefore, the Learned
Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri is directed to pass
appropriate orders.

Jayamma v. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

V.Soundararajan Vs v.Venkatesan

Dr.Senthil Kumar Elangovan Vs Dr.Gnanakalyani

Sasikumar Vs Suganthi

Mr. Alwin Vs Mrs.Sheela

V.P.Shamsudeen(Deceased) Vs the Superintending Engineer

Jayamma v. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

V.Soundararajan Vs v.Venkatesan

Dr.Senthil Kumar Elangovan Vs Dr.Gnanakalyani

Sasikumar Vs Suganthi

Mr. Alwin Vs Mrs.Sheela

V.P.Shamsudeen(Deceased) Vs the Superintending Engineer

A compact analysis

Coram

R.Sridharan Vs S.Kalpana