Dismissed¶43

Jayashree v. G.Neelahram

Madras HC4 Feb 2026CRP/5832/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Territorial jurisdiction — return of plaint — plaint averred cause of action arose at Triplicane, Chennai (execution of GPA and consent deed; second defendant approached plaintiff there) — whether cause of action arose within City Civil Court, Chennai is a triable issue to be decided on evidence, not on mere averments — civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed with liberty to raise jurisdiction at trial — Madras High Court, S. Sounthar J., 04-02-2026 — CRP No. 5832 of 2025 — arising from I.A.No.15 of 2024 in O.S.No.3376 of 2019, XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; revision dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise the point regarding territorial jurisdiction as an issue in the main suit. ¶43

Jayashree Vs G.Neelahram — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; revision dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise the point regarding territorial jurisdiction as an issue in the main suit.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint contains an averment that the consent deed/general power of attorney were executed at Chennai, so that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Chennai, warranting return of the plaint if absent. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

On a close scrutiny, the plaint clearly states that the cause of action for the suit arose at Triplicane in Chennai — where the second defendant approached the plaintiff for sale of the Thenkasi property and on various other dates the general power of attorney and consent letter were executed — therefore there is an averment in the plaint that cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Chennai.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Whether the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai cannot be decided on the mere averments contained in the plaint; it is a matter to be decided on the evidence to be let in by the parties, and the petitioners (defendants 6 to 9) are to be given an opportunity to raise the point at the time of trial.

¶43

Key takeaways

Since the issue raised by the petitioners requires evidence, the trial court rightly dismissed the application seeking return of the plaint; finding no error in the impugned order, this court dismissed the civil revision petition, with liberty to the petitioners to raise territorial jurisdiction as an issue in the main suit, with no costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition CMP.No.28932 of 2025.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), decision dated 04-02-2026 — CRP No. 5832 of 2025 and CMP.No.28932 of 2025: Civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Jayashree, Akshayraja, Akshara and Lalitha (defendants 6 to 9 in O.S.No.3376 of 2019) challenging the order dated 03.09.2025 of the XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dismissing their application (I.A.No.15 of 2024) seeking return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in a money-recovery suit filed by G.Neelahram based on a consent letter and general power of attorney relating to properties at Thenkasi. Held: (i) the plaint avers that the cause of action arose at Triplicane, Chennai, where the second defendant approached the plaintiff and the GPA and consent letter were executed on various dates; (ii) whether the cause of action actually arose within the Chennai court's territorial jurisdiction is a matter to be decided on evidence at trial, not on mere averments in the plaint; (iii) the trial court rightly dismissed the return-of-plaint application and no error is found in the impugned order. Civil revision petition dismissed with liberty to raise territorial jurisdiction as an issue in the main suit; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

CRP No. 5832 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 5832 of 2025 and CMP.No.28932 of 2025

¶7

Jayashree

¶8

Akshayraja

¶9

Akshara

¶10

Lalitha

¶11

..Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

G.Neelahram

¶14

M/s.Dhanajeya Boards (P) Ltd

¶15

Rep. by its Director, S. Baburam,

¶16

S/o. Srirangarajan, D.No.1, Tenkasi Main Road, Elanji Village, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶17

S. Ramasubramanian

¶18

R. Geetha

¶19

Respondents 2 to 4 unnecessary party hence

¶20

given up

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 03.09.2025 in I.A.No.15 of 2024 in O.S.No.3376 of 2019 before the XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.T.Sezhian

Page1 of 5

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

¶27

CRP No. 5832 of 2025

¶28

for R.Meenal For Respondent(s): Mrs.M. Santhanamari for Mr.E.J. Ayyappan

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants 6 to 9 seeking return of the plaint.

¶31

The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on the consent letter executed by second defendant in favour of plaintiff. It is the case of the first respondent/ plaintiff that the second defendant approached him at Chennai for sale of the properties situated at Thenkasi. He executed general power of attorney on 03.07.2007 in favour of plaintiff. Based on the power of attorney executed in favour of plaintiff, the suit property was sold to Mr.N.Sriniranjan under sale deed dated 27.12.2007. Thereafter, there was an attachment of the above mentioned property for realisation of sales tax dues payable by the 1^st defendant company namely M/s. Dhananjeya Boards Private Limited in which 2^nd and 5^th defendants were directors. It is further stated by the plaintiff that though the properties are situated in Thenkasi, all the consideration were paid only at Chennai. It is further stated that the second defendant executed a consent deed on 19.09.2008 agreeing to pay and clear all sales tax dues payable by the first defendant company either by himself or through another firm namely M/s.Dhananjeya Industries, represented by his wife

¶32

Page2 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

CRP No. 5832 of 2025

¶35

Mrs.B.Jeyashree. Since the plaintiff found it difficult to execute sale deed in respect of the remaining properties in his capacity as power agent, he himself cleared arrear dues to the Sale Tax Department. Hence, as per the undertaking letter issued by the second defendant, the suit amount is due to the plaintiff from the defendants. Therefore, the instant suit has been filed.

¶36

The defendants 6 to 9 filed an application seeking return of the plaint on the ground that there is nothing in the plaint to suggest cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, according to petitioner, the court at Chennai has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come before this court.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the plaint there is no averment that consent deed was executed by the second defendant in Chennai and therefore, cause of action for the suit has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Chennai. In such circumstances, the trial court ought not have entertained the plaint as it lacks territorial jurisdiction.

¶38

A close scrutiny of the averments in the plaint would indicate that the plaintiff clearly stated that the cause of action for the suit arose at Triplicane in Chennai wherein the 2^nd defendant approached the plaintiff for sale of property and on various other dates when the defendants executed a general power of attorney, the consent letter, etc., Therefore, there is an averment in the plaint that cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at

¶39

Page3 of 5

¶40

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

¶41

CRP No. 5832 of 2025

¶42

Chennai.

¶43

Whether the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Chennai or not is a matter to be decided based on the evidence to be let in by the parties. The said fact cannot be decided based on mere averments contained in the plaint. Therefore, this court feels that the petitioners/defendants 6 to 9 shall be given an opportunity to raise their points at the time of trial. Since the issue raised by the petitioners requires evidence, the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by them seeking return of the plaint. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to raise the point regarding the territorial jurisdiction as an issue in the main suit. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

04-02-2026

¶45

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

¶46

To The XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶47

Page4 of 5

¶48

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

¶49

CRP No. 5832 of 2025