K. Mari vs Sakthi Kumar

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 01.10.2026
Pronouced on : 27.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
CRP No. 3280 of 2023
and
CMP.No. 20231 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA011488032023}
1. K. Mari,
S/o. Krishtappa Maistry, No.2,
Bhojakara Street, Walajabad Town and Taluk,
Kanchipuram District.
2. K Sankar,
S/o. Krishtappa Maistry, No.85,
Vengudi Village, Walajabad Taluk,
Kanchipuram District
3. K Dhanapal,
rd
S/o. Krishtappa Maistry, No.11, 3 Street,
Devanesan Nagar, Perungalathur,
Chennai-600 016.
4. K Sriramulu,
S/o. Krishtappa Maistry, No.12A, Gandhi
Nagar, 1st Street, St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai-600 016.
5. K Rajendran
S/o. Krishtappa Maistry, No.10,
New Natarajapuram, MMDA Nagar,
Chennai-600106.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Sakthi Kumar
S/o. Mohan, No.516, Vandavasi Road,
Collectorate, Kanchipuram.
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
2. Mohan,
S/o. Krishtappa Maistry, No.85,
Vengudi Main Road, Vendugi Village,
Walajabad Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.163 of 2020 on the file of Sub-
ordinate Judge, Kancheepuram and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Prabhu for R1
No Appearance – R2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint
in O.S.No.163 of 2020 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
nd
Kancheepuram. The petitioners herein are the brothers of the 2 respondent
st nd
and the 1 respondent herein is the son of the 2 respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned
st
counsel appearing for the 1 respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
nd st
petitioners and the 2 respondent herein are brothers. The 1 respondent is the
nd st
son of the 2 respondent. The 1 respondent herein has filed the suit in
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
O.S.No.163 of 2020 for partition against the petitioners herein and as well as the
nd
2 respondent herein and also for a declaration that the registered Settlement
nd rd
Deed dated 15.03.2016 executed by the 2 respondent herein in favour of the 3
petitioner herein, registered as Document No.1106 of 2016 on the file of the
Sub-Registrar Office, Walajabad, as null and void.
4. The petitioners seek to strike off the plaint on the following grounds:
(a) There is no cause of action against the petitioners.
(b) Partition was subsequently effected between the petitioners 1 to 5 and
st st
the 1 respondent herein. Hence, the remedy of the 1 respondent is only against
his father and not against the petitioners.
(c) The second relief sought by the plaintiff, namely, cancellation of the
Settlement Deed dated 15.03.2016 executed by the father of the plaintiff in
th th
favour of the 4 petitioner / 5 defendant under Document No.1106 of 2016,
registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Walajabad, has become infructuous,
since the said Settlement Deed was mutually cancelled by a Cancellation Deed
bearing Document No.1724 of 2022 dated 24.03.2022, registered at the Sub-
Registrar Office, Walajabad.
(d) In view of the subsequent Partition Deed dated 25.07.2022, the plaint
is liable to be struck off against the petitioners on the ground of misjoinder of
parties.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
st
(e) The 1 respondent is entitled to claim a 1/4th share against his father /
nd
2 respondent and not a 1/12th share in the entire property in terms of the
Partition Deed dated 25.07.2022.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit
that the grounds raised in this Civil Revision Petition establishes that there is no
st
cause of action for the 1 respondent to proceed with the suit and, therefore, the
plaint is liable to be struck off. It is further submitted that Order VII Rule 11(a)
and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the present case. Order
VII Rule 11(a) provides for rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a
cause of action, whereas Order VII Rule 11(d) provides for rejection of a plaint
where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law.
According to the learned counsel, in view of the subsequent Partition Deed
dated 25.07.2022, no cause of action survives against the petitioners. It is
st
further contended that the 1 respondent is entitled to claim his share only
against his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that
nd
the petitioners herein are not the Class-I legal heirs of the 2 respondent.
Therefore, according to the petitioners, the averments contained in the plaint are
barred by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
st
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent would
submit that this Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable. The grounds
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact and that has to be
adjudicated only by the learned Trial Court after affording an opportunity to the
parties to lead oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel would
further submit that the petitioners have relied upon subsequent developments,
st
which are disputed by the 1 respondent. It is also submitted that it is well
settled law that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. According to the learned
st
counsel, the suit schedule property is ancestral property and the 1 respondent is
entitled to a share therein by birth. Therefore, the suit is maintainable.
st
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent also relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani and
Others , reported in (2026) 7 SCC 644 , and submitted that the remedy available
to the petitioners is to approach the learned Trial Court by filing an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the
st
plaint. It is further submitted that the valuable rights of the 1 respondent cannot
be defeated by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
8. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
st
that even in the said judgment relied upon by the 1 respondent, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has not imposed an absolute bar on the exercise of the
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that
the said judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case.
9. The main ground urged by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint is
based upon the subsequent Partition Deed dated 25.07.2022. According to the
petitioners, the execution of the said document is the route cause for filing this
petition and there is no cause of action against them and consequently, the suit
is barred by law. However, when there is a dispute regarding the execution of
the subsequent partition deed, the petitioners cannot seek to strike off the plaint
merely on the basis of the allegation of the petitioners. The authenticity of the
said document have to be decided before the Trial Court by letting in oral and
documentary evidence by the respective parties.
10. It is settled law that, while considering an application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the averments contained in the plaint
alone have to be considered. Here, the petitioners relied upon the documents,
which were executed pending the suit. Therefore, the claim for striking off the
plaint by the petitioners is liable to be rejected.
11. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani and Others , reported in (2026) 7 SCC 644 , is relevant,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
“ 34. It has to be acknowledged that almost all civil suits
would involve disputed question of facts. The averment in plaint
quite often than not, raise controversy which, in ultimate analysis,
is to be addressed and adjudicated by leading evidence. As these
are the disputes of civil nature to be dealt with by the civil court,
and the invocation of constitutional powers thereover in a routine
manner may not be necessary nor is advisable. This proposition, in
its analogousness, would justify holding that powers under Article
227 of the Constitution would not be available to be exercised
where there is an alternative remedy.
37. When the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution
are of supervisory nature and when the aforestated settled dictum
of law is that the High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a
court of error, it would logically follow that the powers under
Article 227 would not be exercised when the non-exercise of such
powers does not result into miscarriage of justice or deprivation of
remedy in law to a party.
40. In the garb of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to
engulf the specific statutory remedy or provision in law and, thus,
become a supervisor over the court below or the tribunal, as the
case may be. It would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for
the High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-imposed discipline
and to insist that the aggrieved party should take recourse to such
alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law,
especially, for the case falling in category indicated in
Virudhunagar⁷ where remedy available in the CPC for the cases
falling under category/other law also, where such specific statutory
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
remedy is available, the dictum laid down herein is true to grant
extent.
41. As stated above, embargo in this regard would have to be
construed as near total when provision is available in CPC. It is
held, therefore, that once the specific provision under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers
under Article 227 to reject or strike off the plaint. For such relief,
the specific provision under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, will have to be
resorted to, on the grounds mentioned in the said provision.”
Therefore, when an alternate remedy is available under the Code of Civil
Procedure, the High Court should refrain from exercising its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except in cases where
the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is absolutely necessary.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Valarmathi and Others v.
Kumaresan , reported in 2025 INSC 606 , wherein it was held as follows:
“10. Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and
Order VII, Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which
the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a
deemed decree which is appealable before the High Court under
Section 96 of the Code. This statutory scheme cannot be upended
by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of plaint.”
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
13. This Court, following the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, particularly the judgment in P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani and
Others , referred to supra, is of the view that the remedy available to the
petitioners is to approach the learned Trial Court by filing an appropriate
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and canvass
all their contentions on merits.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the
learned Trial Court and raise all the contentions available to them in accordance
with law. The learned Trial Court shall consider the said application
independently, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KKN
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3280 of 2023
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
KKN
To
The Sub-ordinate Judge,
Kancheepuram.
CRP No. 3280 of 2023
27-10-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )