KANNAMMAL vs K.VELMURUGAN
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP.No.6923 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6923 of 2026
& CMP.No.29769 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012483682026}
1. Kannammal
Wife of Saravanan,
Door No.3E2, Kamaraj Street,
Amman Nagar,
Kumarapalayam Agraharam Village,
Kumarapalayam Taluk,
Namakkal District.
2. Saravanan
Son of Karnan,
Door No.3E2, Kamaraj Street,
Amman Nagar,
Kumarapalayam Agraharam Village,
Kumarapalayam Taluk,
Namakkal District.
...Petitioners
Vs
1. K.Velmurugan
Son of Karnan,
Door No.3E2, Kamaraj Street,
Amman Nagar,
Kumarapalayam Agraharam Village,
Kumarapalayam Taluk,
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
CRP.No.6923 of 2026
Namakkal District.
Now residing at
Door No.5/307-F, Vellakal Kadu,
Thookavadi Village,
Thiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District
2. Nithiyadevi
Wife of Sathishkumar,
Daughter of Velmurugan,
Door No.3E3, Kamaraj Street,
Amman Nagar,
Kumarapalayam Agraharam Village,
Kumarapalayam Taluk,
Namakkal District
Now residing at
Kanjikovil, Ellispettai via,
Erode District.
3. Ishwarya
Wife of Mohanraj,
Daughter of Velmurugan,
Door No.5/701-11, Thiriveni Nagar,
Veppadai, Elanthakuttai Village,
Kumarapalayam Taluk,
Namakkal District.
4. Mohanapriya
Wife of Balakumar
Daughter of Velmurugan,
Door No.3E2, Kamaraj Street,
Amman Nagar,
Kumarapalayam Agraharam Village,
Kumarapalayam Taluk,
Namakkal District
Now residing at
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
CRP.No.6923 of 2026
Door No.5/307-F, Vellakal Kadu,
Thookavadi Village,
Thiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District.
...Respondents
PETITION under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
against the fair order and decretal order dated 13.7.2026 in I.A.No.3
of 2025 in O.S.No.98 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Kumarapalayam.
For Petitioners: Mr.S.Arun Prasath
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of
the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) against the order dated 13.7.2026 in
I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.98 of 2024 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Kumarapalayam (for short, the Court below) wherein
the application filed by the petitioners/D2 & D3 seeking to reject the
plaint, came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
CRP.No.6923 of 2026
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials
available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs, filed the said suit
seeking for the relief of declaration to declare certain documents as
null and void and not binding on them and for permanent injunction.
In the said suit, the petitioners/D2 & D3 filed the said application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking to reject the plaint on
the ground that there was no cause of action for filing the said suit,
that the said suit has been undervalued and that proper court fee
has not been paid.
5. The Court below, after considering the contentions raised
on either side, came to the conclusion that no ground was made out
for rejection of the plaint. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision
petition has been filed before this Court.
6. The first ground that was urged by the petitioners/D2 & D3
for rejection of the plaint is that there was no cause of action for
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
CRP.No.6923 of 2026
filing the said suit since the document has been validly executed by
the power of attorney agent and that the suit property has been
conveyed through sale deeds dated 28.12.2023, based on which,
the petitioners/D2 & D3 have been inducted into possession of the
suit property.
7. The Court below has taken into consideration the stand
taken by the respondents/plaintiffs to the effect that the life
certificate that was relied upon was a fabricated document, that the
very sale deeds executed did not bind the respondents/plaintiffs and
that the said issue could be considered only after both the parties let
in evidence.
8. In so far the issues regarding the valuation of the suit
property and the payment of court fees were concerned, the Court
below found that the court fee has been paid under Sections 25(a)
and 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act in
line with the relief that has been sought for.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
CRP.No.6923 of 2026
9. The reasoning given by the Court below cannot be said to
be illegal and those grounds that have been raised by the
petitioners/D2 & D3 would necessarily require letting in evidence.
Therefore, the petitioners/D2 & D3 are not precluded from raising
those grounds before the Court below and the findings have been
rendered by the Court below only based on the averments made in
the plaint together with the documents filed along with the plaint.
10. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil
revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated
13.7.2026 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.98 of 2024 on the file of
the District Munsif Court, Kumarapalayam stands confirmed.
Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.
03-11-2026
To
The District Munsif Court,
Kumarapalayam.
RS
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
CRP.No.6923 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
CRP.No.6923 of 2026&
CMP.No.29769 of 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )