Disposed¶30

S.Prakash v. S.Karthikeyan

Madras HC3 Mar 2026CRP/5258/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRP No. 5258 of 2025, decided 03-03-2026 by T.V. Thamilselvi, J. Rejection of plaint before numbering (Article 227) in a partition suit challenging a settlement deed dated 20.10.2002 as fraudulent and null. Trial Court (I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) had rejected the plaint as disclosing no cause of action and barred by limitation. Held: knowledge of the settlement deed (whether gained only after the mother's death) is a trial issue, not decidable on plaint averments; plaint to be numbered and suit to proceed. No precedents cited; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to number the suit (unnumbered OS.SR.No. 4340/2025) and proceed as per law; Registry directed to return all original documents to the petitioner with proper acknowledgement; no costs. ¶30

S.Prakash Vs S.Karthikeyan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in the suit for partition challenging the settlement deed dated 20.10.2002 discloses a cause of action, or is barred by limitation and liable to rejection at the threshold before numbering. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of and the trial Court is directed to number the suit and proceed further as per law; the Registry is directed to return all original documents to the petitioner on proper acknowledgement, with no costs.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The question whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the settlement deed only after his mother's death or earlier is to be decided after completion of evidence and not on plaint averments; the trial Court's rejection of the plaint at the threshold is like a judgment requiring interference, and it is for the plaintiff to prove he filed the suit promptly after knowledge.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of the plaint before numbering in unnumbered OS.SR.No. 4340/2025 (I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai). The suit sought partition and separate possession, declaration that a settlement deed dated 20.10.2002 executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the first defendant was null and void (pleaded to have been obtained fraudulently), and permanent injunction. The trial Court rejected the plaint holding that the averments disclosed no cause of action for partition, since the father, the owner, had not challenged the 2002 settlement deed in his lifetime, and framed the rejection as one of maintainability/limitation. The petitioner contended he learnt of the settlement deed only after his mother's death and filed the suit immediately. Held: whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the settlement deed only after his mother's death or earlier is the prime issue to be decided after completion of evidence, not on plaint averments; the trial Court's finding is like a judgment requiring interference. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to number the suit and proceed as per law; the Registry to return the original documents to the petitioner with proper acknowledgement. No costs. (T.V. Thamilselvi, J.; decision dated 03-03-2026.)

¶1

CRP No. 5258 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP No. 5258 of 2025

¶7

S.Prakash

¶8

S/o.T.Sivanesan, Plot No.397, 28th St, 6th Sector, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 78.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

S.Karthikeyan S/o.Late T.Sivanesan, No.31/16, T.P.Koil St, Triplicane Chennai 5

¶12

S. Umamaheswari D/o.Late T.Sivanesan, W/o.Jayaraman, No.124, 7th Cross St, 4th Main Road, Nolambur Chennai 37.

¶13

S. Ambalavanan S/o.Late T.Sivanesan, Plot No. 397, 28th St, 6th Sector, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 78.

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.07.2025 passed in unnumbered OS.SR.No. 4340/2025 by the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai and direct the Registry/Court to number the said Original Suit by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Vijayanand

¶17

Page1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

CRP No. 5258 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging the rejection of the plaint even before numbering the suit, the plaintiff had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶22

The petitioner herein filed a suit for partition, separate possession, to declare that the settlement deed dated 20.10.2002 executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant as null and void, for permanent injunctions for restraining the first defendant his men from alienating and encumbering the suit property and not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property stating that the entire suit property belongs to the father of the plaintiff. The trial Court had rejected the plaint on the ground that the averments in the suit do not disclose any cause of action to file a suit for partition stating that the settlement deed is of the year 2002, but the same has not been challenged by the father of the plaintiff, who is the owner of the property, during his life time. The plaintiff had pleaded that the settlement has been obtained by the first defendant fraudulently from his father.

¶23

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶24

that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the settlement deed only after the death of his

¶25

Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

CRP No. 5258 of 2025

¶28

mother and immediately, he had come forward with the present suit. Therefore, it is his contention that the plaint is well within time and the trial Court failed to take note of the above facts and rejected the plaint.

¶29

The trial Judge has almost framed issues about maintainability of the suit and rejected the suit stating that the suit is barred by limitation as it is not filed within the period of limitation. As per the contention of the petitioner, he came to know about the settlement deed only after the death of his mother and immediately he had filed the suit. Whether the plaintiff had knowledge about the settlement deed only after the death of his mother or earlier, is the prime issue to be decided after completion of evidence, but not based on the plaint averments. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court is like a judgment which requires interference and it is for the plaintiff to prove whether he has filed the suit immediately after the date of the knowledge of the settlement deed.

¶30

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of and the trial Court is directed to number the suit and proceed further as per law. No costs. The registry is directed to return all the original documents to the petitioner by obtaining proper acknowledgement.

¶31

03-03-2026

¶32

__________ Page3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

CRP No. 5258 of 2025

¶35

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶36

vrc