Defendants sought rejection of a plaint for partition, alleging sale deeds and a settlement deed showed the properties were not available for partition. The High Court held rejection of plaint must rest on plaint averments alone, not defence documents, and dismissed the revision with a direction for expeditious trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.8882 of 2021
1.R.Ganesan
2.G.Banumathi
3.G.Prabhu Kumar
... Petitioners
vs
1.S.Jothimani 2.J.Maheswari
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.07.2020 in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.314 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore District by allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar for T.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balamurali for M/s.Shivakumar and Suresh for R1 R2-unclaimed
1/8
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal of the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint.
have filed a petition to reject the plaint on the ground that item No.1 of the properties were sold to various 3rd parties under sale deeds signed by the first respondent, the petitioners and other siblings. Suppressing the said sale deeds executed by her, the first respondent laid a suit claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel even on the date of filing of the plaint, item No.1 of the suit property was not available for partition.
2/8
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
3/8
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
case of the petitioner that the entire item No.1 of the suit property was sold to the 3rd parties by petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 by way of registered sale deeds and therefore, the same is not available for partition. In the counter to the petition for rejection of the plaint, it was claimed by the first respondent that her signature in the sale deed relied on by the petitioners has been forged. Nevertheless, till date the first respondent has not filed any suit to set aside the sale deed allegedly executed by her.
to claim share in the item No.1 of the suit property is very much doubtful.
However, the plaint cannot be rejected in part in respect of item No.1 of the suit property alone.
case of the petitioners that the portion of the suit property was sold to 3rd parties by petitioners as well as respondents 1 and 2 by way of registered sale deed. In respect of the remaining portion of item No.2, it is the specific case
4/8
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
of the petitioners that the same was settled by mother of the parties namely Palaniammal in favour of first petitioner and the second respondent. In her counter to the petition to reject the plaint, it was claimed by the first respondent/plaintiff that she was not aware of the settlement deed allegedly executed by Palaniammal and she denied the execution. Whether settlement deed allegedly executed by Palaniamml in favour of first petitioner and second respondent are valid document or not is a matter for trial. When settlement deed is impugned by the first respondent/plaintiff, it is for the petitioners who rely on the settlement deed to prove the same in the manner known to law. Therefore, validity and genuineness of the settlement deed allegedly executed by mother of Palaniammal cannot be decided at the stage of application for rejection of the plaint.
5/8
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint. Accordingly, the Civil
Revision Petition stands dismissed.
the first respondent in the year 2018, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the trial Court to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear the issues raised by the parties shall be decided on it's own merits based on evidence to be let in by the parties, without being influenced by anything observed in this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.03.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ub
6/8
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
To
The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore District.
7/8
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1157of 2021
04.03.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Can a plaint in a partition suit be rejected based on defence documents such as sale deeds and a settlement deed not referred to in the plaint?
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for rejection of plaint?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Ganesan
G.Banumathi
G.Prabhu Kumar
S.Jothimani
J.Maheswari
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
