Dismissed¶¶51

Velmurugan v. Kannammal

Madras HC23 Feb 2026CRP/1496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court holds that in a petition for rejection of plaint the aggrieved parties are the plaintiffs and co-defendants need not be impleaded. Keywords: rejection of plaint; co-defendants; necessary parties; docket order; I.A.No.3 of 2025; I.A.No.2 of 2025; O.S.No.98 of 2024; Article 227; CRP No. 1496 of 2025; CMP No.8781 of 2025; S. Sounthar J.; Kumarapalayam; nullity of sale deeds; permanent injunction.

What did the court decide?

In a petition for rejection of plaint, the aggrieved parties are the plaintiffs; co-defendants who have not themselves filed such a petition need not be impleaded, since rejection of the plaint will not have any impact upon the other defendants. ¶¶50

Velmurugan Vs Kannammal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP No. 1496 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 1496 of 2025 and CMP No.8781 of 2025

¶7

Velmurugan

¶8

Nithaya Devi

¶9

Ishwarya

¶10

Mohanapriya … Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Kannammal

¶13

Saravanan

¶14

Radhamani

¶15

Senthilkumar

¶16

Sridhar

¶17

Sasikumar

¶18

Gomathi

¶19

Dr.Ganesan

¶20

Rajasekaran

¶21

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal.

¶22

The Tahsildar, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Office of the District Collector, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal.

¶23

The District Revenue Officer, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal.

¶24

The Village Administrative Officer, Kumarapalayam Agraharam Village Kumarapalayam Town, Namakkal.

¶25

__________ Page1 of 5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CRP No. 1496 of 2025

¶28

The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Namakkal.

¶29

The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Namakkal.

¶30

The Commissioner, Kumarapalayam Municipality, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal. … Respondents

¶31

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the docket order dated 13.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025

¶32

in OS No.98 of 2024 and dismiss the I.A.No.3 of 2025 by allowing the civil revision petition.

¶33

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Guruprasad for R1 and R2

¶34

Mr.R.Vigneswaran, Govt.Advocate for R10 to R15.

¶35

For R3, 5, 7 to 9 and 16 – No appearance No representation for R4 and R6.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed

¶38

by the Trial Court, taking the petition for rejection of plaint on file, filed by the respondents 1 and 2 as against the petitioners/plaintiffs alone.

¶39

Page2 of 5

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

CRP No. 1496 of 2025

¶42

The petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.98 of 2024 seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by Radhamani/ 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant dated 28.12.2023 and the sale deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 3^rd defendant on 28.12.2023 were null and void. They also sought for a declaration that the power of attorney deed executed by the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants in favour of the 1^st defendant was null and void. As a consequence, they also sought for a declaration that the sale agreement executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 9^th defendant dated 29.12.2023 was null and void. The petitioners also sought for permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from interfering with their alleged possession of the suit property and also from encumbering the suit properties.

¶43

The respondents 1 and 2, who were arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking rejection of plaint on various grounds. The trial court passed the impugned order, taking the petition to file only against the plaintiffs, namely the petitioners herein by observing that in a petition for rejection of plaint, the co-defendants are not necessary parties. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 have taken a stand that other defendants are necessary

¶45

Page3 of 5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

CRP No. 1496 of 2025

¶48

parties in the other interlocutory application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.2 of 2025. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an error by taking the application to file as against the petitioners alone.

¶49

In a petition for rejection of plaint, the aggrieved parties shall be the

¶50

plaintiffs. The co-defendants, who have not filed a petition for rejection of plaint need not be impleaded, as the rejection of plaint will not have any impact upon the other defendants. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed the Trial Court.

¶51