Allowed¶52

Narayanan Raju v. a.Parvatham

Madras HC27 Mar 2026CRP(MD)/637/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return of original title deed/sale deed; Order XIII Rule 9 CPC; Section 151 CPC; locus standi to seek return of document produced by opposite party; Ex.B.1; O.S.No.27 of 2018, Subordinate Court, Ambasamuthram; A.S.No.62 of 2022 conditional costs Rs.25,000; fifth defendant deceased; Narayana Raju v. A.Parvatham and others; C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice K. Murali Shankar; R.Shankar v. E.Rammohan Chowdary (2024 (3) CurCC 29).

What did the court decide?

Impugned return order dated 25.11.2025 set aside; trial Judge directed to take the application on file, issue notice to the concerned parties and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law; Registry directed to return the original petition with connected records to the learned counsel on record after retaining copies; no costs. ¶52

Narayanan Raju Vs a.Parvatham — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in returning, at the threshold on the ground of locus standi, the plaintiff's application under Section 151/Order XIII Rule 9 C.P.C. for return of the original sale deed marked as Ex.B.1 by the fifth defendant (since deceased), on the view that only her legal heirs could seek return of the document.

¶26

Court's answer

Having regard to the death of the fifth defendant, her non-compliance with the appellate conditional order, and the application having been filed by the plaintiff, the learned trial Judge was not justified in returning the petition at the threshold on the ground of locus standi; the proper course was to take the application on file, issue notice to the necessary parties and adjudicate the matter on merits in accordance with law.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order of return is set aside; the learned trial Judge is directed to take the application on file, issue notice to the concerned parties and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026, K. Murali Shankar J., 27.03.2026: Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against the return order dated 25.11.2025 of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamuthram in unnumbered I.A. of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of 2018, whereby the plaintiff's petition under Section 151/Order XIII Rule 9 C.P.C. for return of the original sale deed dated 25.03.1991 (marked Ex.B.1 by the fifth defendant) was returned for want of locus standi, the fifth defendant (who produced the deed) having died. Held: the trial Judge was not justified in returning the petition at the threshold on the ground of locus standi; the proper course was to take the application on file, issue notice to necessary parties and adjudicate on merits in accordance with law. Impugned order set aside; trial Court directed to take the application on file, issue notice and dispose of it on merits; Registry to return the original petition with connected records; no costs. Counsel relied on R.Shankar v. E.Rammohan Chowdary (2024 (3) CurCC 29) (Karnataka High Court) for the proposition that Order XIII Rule 9 C.P.C. is not confined to the party who produced the document but extends to ensuring return to the person lawfully entitled. Background: O.S.No.27 of 2018 decreed; fifth defendant's A.S.No.62 of 2022 allowed conditionally on payment of Rs.25,000/- costs and remanded; appeal stood dismissed on non-compliance with the condition.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.03.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

¶7

Narayana Raju

¶8

through his Power Agent, Hayachandran K.Nair. : Petitioner

Vs.

1.A.Parvatham

2.N.Pushpa

3.N.Mala

4.N.Mythra

5.Vishalakshiammal @ Visalam : Respondents

¶15

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the impugned return order passed in unnumbered I.A.No..... of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamuthram, dated 25.11.2025.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of return, dated 25.11.2025 made in the petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., (Order XIII Rule 9 of C.P.C.,) for return of original sale deed, dated 25.03.1991, which came to be marked by the fifth defendant in the suit as Ex.B.1.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner had instituted a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2018 for declaration and permanent injunction, and the same came to be decreed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the fifth defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.62 of 2022. The learned Appellate Judge, by a conditional order, directed the fifth defendant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/as costs to the plaintiff and, upon such compliance, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to the fifth defendant to adduce evidence and to conduct a fresh trial. It is further submitted that since the fifth defendant failed to comply with the said condition, the appeal stood dismissed. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present application seeking return of the original title deed.

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

¶26

3.The learned Subordinate Judge, by the impugned order, returned the petition on the ground that the present revision petitioner has no locus standi , as the document was not produced by him, and that only the legal heirs of the deceased fifth defendant would be entitled to seek return of the document.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fifth defendant, in her written statement, claimed to be the second wife of the plaintiff’s father and that she had no issues. He placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in R.Shankar v. E.Rammohan Chowdary (2024 (3) CurCC 29) , wherein it has been held that the scope of Order XIII Rule 9 C.P.C. is not confined merely to the party who produced the document, but extends to ensuring that the document is returned to the person lawfully entitled to it, in the interest of justice. The relevant passages are extracted hereunder ;

¶28

“ 11. In this case, the Trial Court's decision to withhold the documents from the petitioner based solely on the fact that they were produced by the respondent, ignores the broader purpose of Order XIII Rule 9. The provision is not strictly limited to the party that physically submits the documents in Court. Instead, it extends to ensuring rightful ownership and

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

¶32

fair administration of justice. This means that the Rule should be applied in a manner that recognizes the rightful owner of the documents, irrespective of who produced them during trial.

¶33

12. By rigidly applying the literal language of Order XIII Rule 9, the Trial Court lost sight of an essential principle: the plaintiff, having lost the suit, has no legitimate claim to retain the title documents. These title documents inherently belong to the petitioner. The respondent's role in producing the documents during the litigation process does not confer ownership or a right to retain them post- litigation, especially after losing the suit for specific performance. Courts must be pragmatic while dealing with such situations. If the captioned petition is not allowed, the petitioner will lose the title documents forever.

¶34

13. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER

¶35

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶36

(ii) The impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed in Review Petition No.1/2021 by the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari vide Annexure-A confirming the order dated 27.08.2020 passed in Civil Misc.No.20/2018 is hereby quashed.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner's application for the return of the original documents is hereby allowed;

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

¶41

(iv) The trial court is directed to return the original sale deed and the registered Will to the petitioner;

¶42

(v) The return of these documents shall be subject to petitioner providing certified copies to be substituted for the originals.

¶43

(vi) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed .

¶44

Considering the above submissions, and having regard to the fact

¶45

that the fifth defendant is no more, that she had not complied with the conditional order passed by the appellate Court, and that the present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking return of the original document, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge was not justified in returning the petition at the threshold on the ground of locus standi . The proper course would have been to take the application on file, issue notice to the necessary parties, and thereafter adjudicate the matter on merits in accordance with law.

¶46

6.In that view of the matter, the impugned order of return is set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to take the application on file,

¶47

5/7

¶48

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

¶49

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

¶50

issue notice to the concerned parties, and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶51

The Registry is directed to return the original petition along with the connected records to the learned counsel on record, after retaining copies thereof.

¶52