Suit for declaration and injunction was repeatedly returned by the trial Court citing Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act objections. The High Court held the plaint should not have been returned again after hearing; the trial Court must pass a reasoned order on maintainability if unsatisfied with the plaintiff's explanation.
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.
CRP.No.750 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CRP.No.750 of 2026
T.Chellammal
... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Gayathri ...Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the docket order passed in OSSR.No.6849 of 2025 dated 28.01.2026 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Alandur, Chengalpattu District and may be directed to number the suit.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvaraj
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of return passed by the trial Court on 28.01.2026.
the plaint mentioned 'B' schedule property as his absolute property and for
consequential injunction.
1/4
CRP.No.750 of 2026 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit properties were purchased
in the name of the defendants out of her funds.
“ Heard. Earlier return hold. To be complied within two
Therefore, again the papers were returned. When the Court raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the plaint, the petitioner had offered his explanation while representing the papers. Thereafter, the matter
2/4
CRP.No.750 of 2026 was heard in the open Court. If the trial Court is satisfied with the explanation
offered by the petitioner, the plaint shall be numbered and matter shall be proceeded with in accordance with law. If the trial Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, then the trial Court should have passed an order on merits with regard to the maintainability. Instead of passing an order on the maintainability of the plaint, again the plaint was returned and the procedure followed by the Court cannot be accepted. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to the represent papers by offering his explanation. If the trial Court is not satisfied with the explanation, the matter shall be heard in open Court. The order shall be passed on merits regarding the maintainability of the suit.
24.02.2026
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ub
Note: The Registry is directed to return the original plaint and original docket in O.S.SR.No.6849 of 2025 to the counsel for the petitioner, after obtaining necessary endorsement.
3/4
CRP.No.750 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR , J.
ub
To
The Subordinate Judge, Alandur, Chengalpattu District.
CRP.No.750 of 2026 and
24.02.2026
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court could return the plaint again without passing an order on merits on the maintainability objection under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.Chellammal
S.Gayathri
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
