Brother And Sister-In-Law Fail To End Father’s Suit Challenging Property Sale Deeds; Madras HC Says Dispute Needs Evidence

The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 98 of 2024 seeking a declaration that certain documents were null and void and not binding on them, and a permanent injunction.

Defendants 2 and 3 applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, alleging absence of a cause of action, undervaluation of the suit, and insufficient court fee.

The District Munsif Court, Kumarapalayam dismissed that application on 13 July 2026.

Defendants 2 and 3 challenged the dismissal by civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC.

The Court considered Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which provides for rejection of a plaint on specified grounds, and Section 115 CPC, under which the revision was brought.

On valuation and court fee, the Court considered Sections 25(a) and 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, under which the trial court had found the fee paid consistent with the relief claimed.

The Court assessed the rejection application by reference to the plaint averments and documents filed with it; it did not rely on any cited precedent.

The defendants relied on the alleged valid execution of the documents and the sale deeds dated 28 December 2023.

The plaintiffs, however, alleged that the life certificate relied upon was fabricated and that the sale deeds did not bind them.

The Court agreed that resolving these competing claims would require evidence and could not be determined at the plaint-rejection stage.

As to valuation and court fee, it found no basis to disturb the trial court’s conclusion that the fee had been paid under Sections 25(a) and 27(c) in accordance with the relief sought.

The defendants remained free to raise their grounds before the trial court.

The connected CMP was also dismissed.