Kokila v. Kamalakannan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 12470 OF 2025

1. Kokila W/o. Vadivazhagan, No.1833/H3, Guberan Nagar, 3rd East Road, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District

2. Santhinivinnarasi W/o. Arul, No.705, Perumanam village, Tiruvannmalai Taluk and District

3. Gomathi W/o. Sankar, No.8/413, Krishna Nagar, Chittalampattu Village, Vikravandi Taluk,Villupuram,

4. Durairajan S/o. Balasundaram, No.548, South Street, Cheyyalari, Chellankuppam Village, Kilpennathur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District ..Petitioner(s) Vs Kamalakannan S/o. Chinnasamy, No.4, Gandhi Nagar, 8th Street, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District ..Respondent(s)

PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to allow the above CRP by setting aside the fair and Decretal order dated 11-03-2025 passed in I.A.No.11/2024 in O.S.No.10/2021 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannmalai.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.S.Vaideeswaran

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.11 of 2024 in O.S.No.10 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the Revision Petitioners/defendants 8 to 11 preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint stating that pending litigation, they have purchased the property on 24.02.2021 and also contended that already their vendor is having title over the property from the year of 2013. But, to challenge the said document, the respondent/plaintiff approached the court only in the year 2021 as such is barred by limitation. As the previous sale deed related to the suit property forming part and parcel of the sale deed of the year 2021, they prayed to reject the plaint, but it was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, they preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would submit that the 1st and 2nd defendants, both have no right and title over the property and they have fabricated the records. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.

4. On seeing the facts, it reveals that as an original owner, the respondent/plaintiff has already given a police complaint against 1st defendant, alleged vendor of revision petitioners. It is also known fact that the revision petitioners, the recent purchasers of the property in the year 2021. If at all, they are having any defence with regard to vendor's title, they are entitled to raise the same before the trial court. The respondent/plaintiff has approached the court as a lawful owner and also contended that there is money transaction between him and the defendants 1 and 2, which came into force and the same was objected by the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the 1st defendant, who is an advocate by profession, as on date the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has taken action against him and it was challenged before the Bar Council of India.

So, all these facts requires full-fledged trial, therefore, the reason assigned by the revision petitioners to reject the plaint is not sustainable one. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the revision petitioners to raise all their defence before the trial court. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RPP To The Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

RPP AND CMP NO. 12470 OF 2025 26-03-2026