Madras High Court
K.Buvaneswari vs J.Jegajothi on 15 April, 2026
AS. No.48 of 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 15.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
AS. No.48 of 2026
and
C.M.P.Nos.1411 and 5759 of 2026
K.Buvaneswari
rep. By her General Power of Attorney
Ms.K.Gajalakshmi
st
... Appellant/1 Respondent/
Plaintiff
Vs.
1.J.Jegajothi
2.J.Selva Prakash
3.M.Selvi
4.Minor.M.Logesh
(Minor rep. by mother and natural guardian
M.Selvi) ... Respondents1-4 /Petitioners / Defendants 1 to 4
5.A.Kalavathi
6.A.Meenakshi
7.K.Narmatha alias Asha
8.Senthil Kumar
9.Manimegalai ... Respondents5-9 /Petitioners / Defendants 6 to 10
10.Saravanan
11.Mala
1/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
12.Devi
13.Jamuna ... Respondents 10-13/Petitioners / Defendants 11-13
th th
14.N.Subramani ... 14 Respondent /Petitioners /20 Defendant
th th
15.S.Varalakshmi ... 15 Respondent /Respondent/5 Defendant
16.Manjula
17.T.Sundaramoorthy
18.Vimala ...Respondents 16-18 /Respondents/ Defendants11-13
Palaniappan (Died)
Pushpa (Died) ...Respondents /Respondents/ Defendants 18&19
19.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
20.The Special Thasildar,
Land Acquisition,.
Chrompet,
Chennai. ...Respondents 19&20/Respondents/
Defendants 21 & 22
21.Ravi
22.Girija ... Respondents 21&22/Respondents/
Defendants 23 & 24
PRAYER in A.S :- Appeal Suit filed under section 96 of Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.12.2025 in
2/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
I.A.No.25 of 2025 in O.S.No.233 of 2021 on the file of the Principal
District Court at Chengalpattu.
Prayer in C.M.P.(MD)No.5759 of 2026: To permit the additional grounds
in A.S.No.48 of 2026 before this Court.
For Appellant : Ms.Gajalakshmi
party-in-person
For Respondents : Ms.Vijayalakumari Natarajan, for R6, R7 & R8
: Mr.G.Nanmaran
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned”.
Heard the appellant-Party in person as well as Ms.Vijayakumari
Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents would submit
that in the prayer portion instead of O.S.No.253 of 2021, it was wrongly
mentioned as O.S.No.233 of 2021.
3. In paragraph No.2.2., “Jayavel also died in the year 2019”, it is
to be corrected as 2013; In paragraph No.2.4. Instead of
Madhurandhagam, it is wrongly mentioned as Madhuragham.
3/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
4. In paragraph No. 2.7, instead of Gandeeban Vedhachalam, it
was wrongly typed as Ganiban Vekatachalam .
5. In paragraph No.2.8., sixth line instead of Muthuraj, it was
th
wrongly mentioned as Muthurajendra; and in 15 line instead of
defendants 7 to 9, it was wrongly mentioned as defendants 5 to 7.
6. In paragraph Nos.3.6., instead of defendants 7 to 9, it was
wrongly mentioned as defendants 1 to 4. in paragraph No.4, heading
instead of defendants 7 to 9, it was wrongly mentioned as defendants 1
th th
to 4 and in 10 line instead of 6 defendant, it was wrongly mentioned as
Her father and also in the last line of this para, instead of defendants 7 to
9, it was wrongly mentioned as defendants 1 to 4.
8. The learned counsel would state that the above said corrections
may be carried out in the judgment.
4/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
9. Ms.K.Gajalakshmi, party-in-person mentioned that instead of
C.M.P.No.1411 of 2026 it was wrongly mentioned as CMP.No.1141 of
2026 and the same to be rectified.
10. Certain typographical errors have been pointed out by both the
party-in-person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents. The parties do not have any objection with
regard to the said corrections, which are only inadvertent and
typographical in nature, relating to dates, case numbers as well as ranks
of the parties.
12. Registry is directed to carryout the above said corrections and
upload the corrected judgment in the website forthwith.
15.04.2026
LS
Note: Issue order copy on 21.04.2026
TO
1. The Principal District Judge,
Chengalpattu.
2.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
5/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
3.The Special Thasildar,
Land Acquisition,.
Chrompet, Chennai.
4.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
6/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI,J.
LS
A.S.No.48 of 2026
15.04.2026
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
7/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
Reserved On : 27.02.2026
Delivered on : 30.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
AS. No.48 of 2026
and
C.M.P.Nos.1411 and 5759 of 2026
K.Buvaneswari
rep. By her General Power of Attorney
Ms.K.Gajalakshmi
st
… Appellant/1 Respondent/
Plaintiff
Vs.
1.J.Jegajothi
2.J.Selva Prakash
3.M.Selvi
4.Minor.M.Logesh
(Minor rep. by mother and natural guardian
M.Selvi) … Respondents1-4 /Petitioners / Defendants 1 to 4
5.A.Kalavathi
6.A.Meenakshi
7.K.Narmatha alias Asha
8.Senthil Kumar
9.Manimegalai … Respondents5-9 /Petitioners / Defendants 6 to 10
10.Saravanan
11.Mala
12.Devi
13.Jamuna … Respondents 10-13/Petitioners / Defendants 11-13
th th
14.N.Subramani … 14 Respondent /Petitioners /20 Defendant
8/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
th th
15.S.Varalakshmi … 15 Respondent /Respondent/5 Defendant
16.Manjula
17.T.Sundaramoorthy
18.Vimala …Respondents 16-18 /Respondents/ Defendants11-13
Palaniappan (Died)
Pushpa (Died) …Respondents /Respondents/ Defendants 18&19
19.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
20.The Special Thasildar,
Land Acquisition,.
Chrompet,
Chennai. …Respondents 19&20/Respondents/
Defendants 21 & 22
21.Ravi
22.Girija … Respondents 21&22/Respondents/
Defendants 23 & 24
PRAYER in A.S :- Appeal Suit filed under section 96 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.12.2025
in I.A.No.25 of 2025 in O.S.No.233 of 2021 on the file of the Principal
District Court at Chengalpattu.
Prayer in C.M.P.No.5759 of 2026: To permit the additional grounds in
A.S.No.48 of 2026 before this Court.
For Appellant : Ms.Gajalakshmi
party-in-person
For Respondents : Ms.Vijayalakumari Natarajan, for R6, R7 & R8
: Mr.G.Nanmaran
Special Government Pleader
9/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for partition, aggrieved by
rejection of plaint in I.A.No.25 of 2025, has preferred the present first
appeal. After arguments and judgment was also reserved in the appeal, the
appellant came out with an application in C.M.P.No.5759 of 2026 for
raising additional grounds in the appeal and hence, the appeal suit was
reopened and further arguments were heard on 27.02.2026. The Civil
Miscellaneous Petition filed seeking permission to raise additional
grounds is taken up along with the main Appeal.
2.Pleadings:
The plaint in brief:
2.1. The Plaintiff is the daughter of Ekambara Mudaliar, who
owned the schedule mentioned properties. He was married to Anjalakshi
Ammal and they blessed with a son Jayavel. After the demise of his wife
Anjalakshi Ammal, in 1948, the said Ekambara Mudaliar married the
plaintiff’s mother Kullammal, who is none else than the own younger
sister of his wife, Anjalakshi Ammal. Ekambara Mudaliar and Kullammal
were blessed with one son and 3 daughters, namely, Alagesan,
10/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
th thVaralaxshmi-5 defendant, Kalavati -6 defendant and Buvaneswari
-plaintiff. The said Ekambara Mudaliar died in 1990; his son Alagesan
also died subsequently in the year 1994; Kullammal also died in the year
th th
of 2002. Alagesan died leaving behind his wife 7 defendant, daughter 8
th
defendant and son 9 defendant.
2.2. The son Jayavel born to first wife, Anjalakshi Ammal died in
the year 2013, leaving behind his wife Amirthavalli, sons Jagajothi, Selva
Prakash viz., defendants 1 and 2 and another son Manikkavasagam. The
said Manikkavasagam also died, leaving behind his mother Amirthavalli
and wife and son viz., defendants 3 and 4 respectively. Amirthavalli died
in the year 2019; Jayavel also died in the year 2019.
2.3. The father Ekambara Mudaliar had ancestral property at
Kinnar Village, which were agricultural lands under cultivation by
Ekambara Mudaliar. He also had a vegetable business, from and out of
the said income as well as income from the agricultural properties, he
purchased several properties.
11/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
2.4. One such property purchased by Ekambara Mudaliar is
comprised in survey No. 294, of extent of 1 acre 65, cents together with 3
HP electric motor at Kinnar Village, Madhuragham Taluk. The property
was purchased in the name of his wife Anjalakshi Ammal for the benefit
of family. Anjalakshi Ammal was a housewife with no independent
income to purchase the said property; the sale deed standing in the name
of Anjalakshi Ammal is only a sham and nominal document and does not
get exempted under the provision of the Benami Transactions
(Prohibition) Act, 1988 therefore, the property belonged only to
Ekambara Mudaliar.
2.5. While so, the plaintiff in the year 2018 came in possession of
a photostat copy of a partition deed in and whereby Ekambara Mudaliar
during his lifetime along with the brothers of the plaintiff Jayavel,
Alagesan had entered into a partition and divided ancestral properties.
The partition deed is a bogus document not binding on the plaintiff
Ekambara Mudaliar was himself not a beneficiary to any property under
the partition deed dated 13.12.1985. The plaintiff received a certified
12/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
copy of the document only in the year 2014 and the plaintiff, being a
legal heir, entitled to share, has been kept away from legitimate share in
the joint family property.
2.6. The father also purchased lands in old TS No. 553/ 1A 1B,
New TS No.553/5, sub divided as T.S.No.553/5A. The plaintiff’s brother
filed a Writ petition in the year 1994 and against the order of Writ Court,
th
the 7 defendant filed a Writ appeal, in W.A.No.1503 of 2000 and the
same was dismissed. However in a review application in R.A. No.129 of
2002, the review application was allowed by order dated 23.04.2004,
setting aside land acquisition proceedings initiate against the lands in TS
No : 553/5A, which were sought to be acquired by the Housing Board.
However, behind the back of the plaintiff the Housing Board issued No
-objection certificate on 14.06.2010 and patta was transfer led in the
names of defendants 7, 8 and 9 suppressing the existence of other legal
heirs including the plaintiff
2.7. The father, Ekambara Mudaliar also owned property at
Chengalpattu in old survey No. 437 / 1A4 ( New TS No : 1169), which
13/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
was purchased by him, even prior to starting his vegetable business. He
constructed a residential house and lived there till his death. The property
has been assessed in his name in Door No.9/32, Ganiban Venkatachalam
Street, Chengalpattu. However, even in respect of this property, the
defendants 7,8,9 have played fraud and changed the patta in their names.
2.8 Ekambara Mudaliar also a purchased shop at Bazaar Street,
Chengalpattu, with service connection in the year 1957. This property has
also been mutated in the names of the defendants 7 to 9, by playing fraud
and suppressing the existence of the their legal heirs. Similarly, the
defendants 7 to 9 also mutated the records pertaining to property
purchased by Ekambara Mudaliar from Muthurajaendra Vaigaiyara in the
year 1974 and from Ramaswamy Pillai in the year 1976. All the
properties were purchased by Ekambara Mudaliar only out of income that
accrued from ancestral properties. Subsequent to the demise of Ekambara
Mudaliar, the properties have been sold to third parties, who are arrayed
as defendants 10 to 20. The said alienations are not binding on the
th
plaintiff. The plaintiff, as a class I legal heir, is entitled to 1/5 a share in
the suit property.In in respect of acquisition proceeding initiated by the
14/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
Highways Department, compensation was directed to be paid in
defendants 5 to 7, without including the plaintiff’s name and hence, the
plaintiff approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
in SLP No: 18841 of 2019, and the same was dismissed, by granting
liberty to the plaintiff to file a civil suit. Hence, the suit.
th
3.Written statement filed by the 9 defendant, briefly:
The plaint allegations are denied. Ekambara Mudaliar did not have
any ancestral property in Kinnar Village and all the allegations that
several properties were purchased by him, from and out of the nucleus of
the ancestral property are false. Ekambara Mudaliar started his business
by working in a vegetable shop in Chengalpattu and thereafter, started his
own vegetable shop with his sons viz., Jayavel and Alagesan who joined
him and all three carried on vegetable Mandi business which was the
only source of income to the family. The schedule properties were
purchased by Ekambara Mudaliar only from and out of the income from
the vegetable Mandi business. The daughters Varalakshmi, Kalavathi,
and Buvaneswari were married during the lifetime of the father and they
were given substantial Sreethana. The suit properties were self acquired
15/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026properties of Ekambara Mudaliar, which were purchased from and out of
income from the business run by him and his sons, Jayavel and Alagesan.
All the three, entered into a registered partition deed 13.12.1985 to the
knowledge of the daughters Varalakshmi, Kalavathi and Buvaneswari, the
th
plaintiff. Infact the husband of one of the daughters, Kalavati, the 5
defendant attested the partition deed.In lieu of the promise by the sons
that they would look after their father, Ekambara Mudaliar did not
choose to retain any property for himself and under the partition deed, all
properties were given to the sons. The allegation made by the plaintiff
that the partition deed is bogus forged manipulated and created
suspiciounly are all totally false. The self serving averment that the
plaintiff came to know about the partition deed only in 2018 is false and
made only for the purpose of saving limitation for filing the suit. Even in
1983, when the family partition was entered into, all family members,
including the plaintiff had full knowledge the partition deed and it is valid
in binding on the plaintiff. The pursuant notices issued claiming partition
was suitably replied to. The plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the
partition deed after 36 years and the suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation.
16/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 20263.2. The plaintiff has suppressed material facts and has not come
to Court with clean hands For the first time, the plaintiff started making a
claim only when suit property item No. 9, house site was sought to be
acquired by the Highways authorities and compensation was about to be
disbursed. The plaintiff’s claims were rejected and when final award was
about to be passed, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
3.3. In so far as the acquisition, the Housing Board, pursuvant to
an order in R.A.No.129 of 2002 in W.A.No.1503 of 2000, handed over
lands to the defendants 7 to 9 and patta was also changed in their names.
In respect of the State Highways, acquisition in the year 2011, for
construction of a bridge, though possession was taken and award not be
passed, the defendants 7 to 9 a filed writ petition in W.P.No.22664 of
2014 seeking directions to pass an award; the plaintiff filed M.P.No.1 of
2015 seeking to implead herself in the said Writ Petition. The plaintiff
contended that the partition deed dated 13.12.1985 is invalid, however the
plaintiff’s impleading application was dismissed.
3.4. The plaintiff filed a separate writ petition in W.P. No. 38501 of
17/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
2016, again alleging the partition deed to be invalid and to include her
name in the Land Acquisition Proceedings. The said writ petition was
dismissed on merits by order dated 12.06.2017. Yet another Writ petition
was filed by the plaintiff in W.P.No.27761 of 2017 seeking to quash the
land acquisition in Award No.6 of 2017 dated 13.04.2017 and the said
writ petition also came to be dismissed on 13.03.2018, where the writ
Court has held that the plaintiff continues to waste the time of the Court
in seeking to set at naught the partition deed despite having come to
know about partition deed even the year 2000.A writ appeal was filed
along with delay in W.A SR No.108670 of 2018 and the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court, by order dated 12.02.2019, dismissed the condone
delay application and rejected the writ appeal.
3.5. As against the same the plaintiff moved the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and SLP was also dismissed, at the admission stage itself. All these
attempts having failed, the plaintiff also moved the Revenue authority for
cancellation of patta. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by a detailed order
dated 08.03.2018, dismissed the plaintiff’s petition and hence, a revision
was filed before the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram and the
18/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
revision was also dismissed by order dated 28.09. 2018. The present suit
is a frivolous case, suppressing earlier litigation and filed only with
mala fide intention to harass the true owners, namely, defendants 7 to 9.
th
Therefore, the 9 defendant sought for dismissal of a suit.
3.6. An application in IA.No. 25 of 2025 was filed by the
defendants 1 to 4 under Order V11 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.253 of 2021, on the
ground that the suit is barred by the limitation.
IA.No. 25 of 2025:
4. The case of the defendants 1 to 4 as petitioners:
4.1. The partition was effected in the year 1985, to the knowledge
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that she came to know about the
document recently. The plaintiff’s husband was a tenant under Alagesan
and paid monthly rent, till his demise. After his demise, no rents were
th
paid and, the plaintiff’s husband, stopped paying rents and the 7
defendant, wife of Alagesan filed R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2000 for eviction. In
19/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026the said Rent Controller Petition, the plaintiff’s husband took a stand that
his, wife is entitled to share in the property. At that juncture, the plaintiff
th
sent a lawyer’s notice on 15.7.2002 claiming 1/5 share in the properties
of Ekambara Mudaliar. Her father replied to the said notice, by reply
notice dated 26.07.2002 stating that the properties are self acquired
properties of Ekambara Mudaliar and the properties have been divided
amongst Ekambara Mudaliar and two sons Jayavel and Alagesan in and
by a registered partition deed dated 13.12.1985, which was also within
the knowledge of all his daughters, including the plaintiff. It was also
th
contended that the husband of 6 defendant infact attested the partition
deed and even in subsequent exchange of lawyer’s notices dated
02.04.2009 and 05.08.2014, the plaintiff has alleged the partition deed to
be farged document and both the notices were suitably replied to.Even in
R.C.O.P.No. 6 of 2000 the plaintiffs husband’s defence was rejected and
eviction was ordered as earlier as in November 2002. The suit is therefore
hopelessly barred by limitation, with the defendant having knowledge of
the prohibited atleast in the year 2002. The plaint has been filed as if the
plaintiff got knowledge only in the year 2018, which is invented for the
20/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026purpose of the case and bringing the suit within period of limitation. The
defendants 1 to 4, therefore, prayed for rejection under the plaint.
5. Counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff:
The plaintiff came to know about the partition deed only in the
year 2014 and immediately thereafter, commencing from 2014 and upto
2019. The plaintiff has taken several steps including filing Writ Petitions,
Appeals to Revenue authorities to establish her rights. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court gave liberty to the plaintiff to file a civil suit. Hence, the
question of limitation does not arise and the application for rejection of
plaint has to be necessarily dismissed.
6. Decision of the Trial Court:
On enquiry, the trial Court found that the plaintiff had knowledge
of the partition deed and did not choose to challenge the same within the
statutory period of limitation, viz., 3 years and consequently, allowed the
reject the plaint application and thus, dismissed the suit.
7. Present appeal:
The plaintiff, challenging the rejection of plaint, has preferred the
21/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026present first appeal.
8. I have heard Ms.K.Gajalakshmi power agent and daughter of
the plaintiff /appellant, Ms.Buvaneswari party-in-person and Ms.Vijaya
kumari Natarajan, learned counsel for the respondents 6,7,and 8 as well
as Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents 19 and 20. I have also gone through the records as well as
the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the party-in-person as
well as the learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 8 and 19 and 20.
Arguments of the appellant (patry-in-person):
The power agent party-in-person of the appellant,
Ms.K.Gajalakshmi, contended that the learned Principal District Judge
has failed to take note of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court granting
liberty to the appellant to file a civil suit to vindicate her rights and in
such circumstances, the Principal District Judge, the trial Court should
not have accepted the case of the defendants and proceeded to reject the
plaint. It is her specific contention that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has permitted the appellant / plaintiff to file a Civil Suit, it would imply
that the suit will have to be tried in normal course and can not been
22/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026dismissed at the threshold, that to, invoking the provision under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC.
9. The party-in-person would further state that the plaintiff has
raised serious contentions and issues, including the veracity and legality
of the alleged partition, and unless the parties lead evidence it would not
be possible for the Court to adjudicate the said issues in an effective
manner. She would also state that even though the partition deed is dated
13.12.1985, in the reply notice sent by the contesting defendants, there
has been no mention about details, especially for a passing a reference to
the alleged partition deed and that the defendants did not provide a copy
of the same to the plaintiff. It is therefore the contention of the plaintiff
appellant, that the cause of action for filing a suit arose only in the 2018,
when the plaintiff came to know about that acts of fraud and forgery in
bringing about the alleged partition. She would further state that the suit
is in fine in terms of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, as only in 2018,
the plaintiff was in a position to obtain a copy of the partition deed.
10. In relation to the additional grounds raised, the party-in-person
would state that, in an enquiry before the DRO, Kanchipuram, for the
23/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
first time on 14.08.2018, the plaintiff was put on notice about the partition
deed and immediately on receipt of a photostat copy, the suit has been
filed and it is well within the period of limitation, computing the starting
point of limitation from the date of knowledge. She would refer to the
additional grounds and take me through, the same supplementing her
earlier arguments that the plaintiff was not having a copy of the partition
deed until the enquiry before the DRO, Kanchipuram. She would also
submit that the partition deed has been registered as Document No. 1 of
1986 and was executed on non-judicial stamp paper of value Rs. 8,300/-
and that only a photostat copy of the said document on Rs. 12/- non-
judicial stamp paper was furnished to the plaintiff / appellant and this is a
serious suspicion with regard to genuineness of the partition deed itself.
Even otherwise, according to the party-in-person, the copies of the
partition deed furnished to the plaintiff / appellant did not contain proper
seal or endorsement and in such circumstances she would contend that
the suit cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation.
11. Ms.K.Gajalakshmi would also rely on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daliben valjibhai vs Prajapati Kodarbhai
Kachrabhai case reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4105 to argue that
24/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
when fraud is alleged, limitation should be computed from the discovery,
of frauds. She also states that the plaintiff had filed on interlocutory
application in I.A.No. 5 of 2021 in very same suit, seeking disbursement
of compensation amount in the land acquisition and proceedings C.M.A.
came to be filed against the dismissal of said application in
C.M.A.No.2432 of 2022 and the said CMA is pending before this Court.
She would also state an that application I.A.No.8 of 2021also been filed
for sending the disputed signatures in the partition deed for comparison.
She also states that this trial Court has failed to consider the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 783 of 2025 which
directed the respondents 6 to 8 to deposit Rs. 35 lakhs to credit of the suit
and in such circumstances the party-in-person state that the suit could not
have been summarily rejected, citing limitation, when so many interveing
factors are present and necessarly to be decided. She would also rely on
the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27082 of 2022 filed by the
respondent 6 to 8, where also the writ Court took note of the fact that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the parties to approach the civil
Court to establish title and subsequently, the suit was also filed. She
would, however, state that in the writ petition, taking note of the rejection
25/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
of the plaint, the writ petition was disposed directing the Respondent 6 to
8 to seek disbursement of the balance compensation amount after
production of a copy of the decree in O.S. No. 253 of 2021.
12. Arguments of learned counsel for the contesting respondents :
12.1. Per contra, Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents 6 to 8 would state that the
plaintiff / appellant has been in the habit of filing one case after the other,
in order to prevent the lawful enjoyment of the suit properties by the true
owners. The learned counsel would further state that the plaintiff has also
been in the habit of suppressing material facts and circumstances from the
Court and of making false statements in various Courts of law. She
would further state that even though written statement has been filed by
th
the 9 defendant, the defendants were always at liberty to take our as
application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The
learned counsel would further state that the trial Court has rightly taken
note of the grounds on which rejection of the plaint was sought, and even
though limitation is normally a mixed question of law and fact, when
there is strong material to establish that the suit is hopelessly barred by
26/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026limitation, the Court is not precluded from rejecting the plaint on the
ground of limitation.
12.2. The learned counsel for the respondents 6, 7 and 8,
Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan, would further state that it has been borne
out by records, and infact it is admitted even in the plaint that the
plaintiff was aware of the partition entered into between her father,
Ekambara Mudaliar, and his two sons, Jayavel and Alagesan,even though
the reply notice sent on 26.07.2002. The learned counsel would state that
the plaintiff did not take any steps to challenge the partition deed, until
the present suit was filed in the year 2021. The learned counsel would
therefore state that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and the trial
Court has rightly invoked the powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, to
reject the plaint, warranting no interference in this appeal suit.
12.3. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the
following decisions:
1. B.Baleeshwari V.J.Gunavathy Babu & another, reported in
2020-2-MWN(Civil)435
2. Raghwendra Sharan Singh V. Ram Prasanna Singh, reported
27/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026in 2019-2-CTC-823(SC)
3. K.Murali V. M.Mohamed Shaffir, reported in 2020-1-CTC-38
4. Dahiben V. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) & others,
reported in 2020-5-CTC-471
5. Rajeev Gupta & others V. Prashant Gard & others, reported in
2025-3-CTC-730(SC)
6. B.Revathy V. Hariraj & others, reported in 2025-3-CTC-705
7. Uma Devi & others V. Hariraj & others, reported in 2025-5-
SCC-198
8. Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Hitesh P Sanghi & others,
reported in 2025-SCC Online(SC)779
13. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
appellant party-in-person as well as Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned
counsel for the respondents 6 to 8 and Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents 19 and 20.
14. Point for consideration:
On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel
28/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026on either side, I frame the following point for consideration:
(i). Whether the suit for the relief of declaration and consequently
partition, filed by the appellant, seeking a declaration to nullify the
partition deed dated 13.12.1985 and several subsequent documents
flowing from the said partition deed, has been filed within the statutory
period of limitation or not; and if not, whether the plaint is liable to be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
15. Discussion:
15.1. The plaintiff, claiming to be the daughter of Ekambara
Mudaliar, contends that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of
Ekambara Mudaliar and stakes a claim for a 1/5th share in the same. The
suit claim is sought to be resisted on the ground that the properties are not
ancestral properties, but only self-acquired properties of the said
Ekambara Mudaliar, which were acquired with the active assistance and
involvement of his two sons, Jayavel and Alagesan. Further even during
lifetime of Ekambara Mudaliar, in and by registered partition deed dated
13.12.1985, the father and two sons have already divided the properties
and the sons have been in seperate possession and enjoyment of their
respective entitlements, ever since. In this background, the application for
29/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026rejection of the plaint has been filed contending that the plaintiff was
aware of the partition deed dated 13.12.1985 as early as in 2002, and in
such circumstances ought to have approached the Court within a period
of three years and filed the suit even in 2005; however, the present suit
has been filed only in the year 2021, way beyond the statutory period of
limitation.
15.2. It is settled law that in an application for rejection of plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look only into the plaint
averments, allegations and the documents filed along with the plaint, and
examine the plaint. In the present case, I find that even in paragraph No. 5
of the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that the seventh defendant sent a
reply notice dated 26.07.2002, not only stating that the properties are not
ancestral properties, but self-acquired properties of Ekambara Mudaliar,
but also that, under a registered partition deed dated 13.12.1985, to the
knowledge of the daughters, including the plaintiff, the properties of
Ekambara Mudaliar had already been divided. Further, the plaintiff goes
on to refer to subsequent notices issued by her to her brother Jayavel on
02.04.2009 and to Meenakshi, her sister-in-law, wife of her brother
Alagesan, on 05.08.2014. The plaintiff has averred that in the said notices
30/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026also, she alleged that the partition deed is forged and concocted, and has
also admitted that reply notices were sent to both these notices
contending that the partition deed is genuine. Thus, there is a clinching
admission in the plaint that the plaintiff was aware of the partition deed
dated 13.12.1985, even as contended, at least from July 2002, if not
earlier, as contended by the defendants, who have asserted that the
plaintiff knew about the partition deed even at the time of its execution in
the year 1985. The suit has admittedly not been filed within the period of
three years, challenging the partition deed.
15.3. The party-in-person contended that there was some foul play
with regard to the stamp paper on which the partition deed had been
prepared, and that though reference was made to the partition deed during
the exchange of notices, a copy of the partition deed had not been served
on the plaintiff to enable her to file the suit. I do not see any merit in the
said contentions. The plaintiff herself has admitted that in the reply
notices, the 7th defendant had taken a stand claiming rights under the
registered partition deed, and that was in 2002. The plaintiff did not
choose to take any steps until 2009, when she sent a notice to her brother
Jayavel, wherein she alleged that the partition deed is a forged document.
31/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
The same allegation was made in the notice issued to the 7th defendant
five years later, on 05.08.2014, as well. When the plaintiff is able to
allege forgery and that the document is concocted, it is, at the outset, not
believable that the plaintiff did not have the benefit of a copy of the deed.
Even otherwise, the partition deed is a registered document, and on
gaining knowledge of the said partition deed, it was for the plaintiff to
take diligent steps to apply for a certified copy of the same and challenge
it in the manner known to law, within the period of limitation. The
plaintiff, having come to know about the registered partition deed at least
in the year 2002, left the matter unattended and, after a lapse of 19 years,
has filed the present suit. The fact that the plaintiff was approaching the
revenue authorities and also the writ Court for various directions cannot
enlarge the period of limitation. The clock started ticking the moment the
plaintiff came to know of the partition deed coming in her way to claim
her right in the properties of her father, Ekambara Mudaliar. Therefore,
without traversing outside the plaint averments and allegations, it is
clearly discernible that the plaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The
trial Court has rightly taken note of these material factors to allow the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and consequently reject the
32/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
plaint. I do not see any infirmity in the findings rendered by the trial
Court.
15.4. Coming to the decisions, that have relied on by the party-in-
person and, Ms. Vijayakumari Natarajan appearing for the contesting
respondents in Daliben Valjibhai’s (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4105) case,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with a sale deed that was
executed on 04.12.2004 and suit having been filed after a period of 13
years on 10.4.2017, The Trail court had rejected the plaint, invoking the
power under Order VII Rule11 CPC, on the ground that suit was barred
by limitation. However, on appeal, the Principal District Judge, set aside
the order of the trial Court and restored the suit to file; the High Court
allowed the second appeal and thereby, restored the order of rejection of
the plaint. On facts that Hon’ble Supreme Court found that High Court
had drawn inferences that were possible only after trial. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court clearly held that the relevant factor would be whether the
plaintiff had knowledge of the execution of sale deed and when it was the
case of the plaintiff that they came to know about the same only when the
Deputy Collector had issued notices to them in March 2017, and that for
the first time they came to know about the execution of the sale deed and
33/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
therefore the suit was in time, the Apex Court found that the order of
rejection was not based on the plaint averments and had also reckoned
limitation from the date of registration of the document instead of from
the date of knowledge. This decision, though relied on by the party-in-
person, in fact, does not advance her case. The ratio laid down therein
only runs contrary to the appellant’s case. As held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, for deciding limitation, (i) the Court is to be confined
only to the plaint averments, and (ii) the date of knowledge of the
document challenged would be the relevant factor.
15.5. In the present case, as already discussed, the plaintiff herself
has admitted that she had knowledge of the partition deed as early as in
2002, if not earlier. Therefore, even in terms of Article 59 of the
Limitation Act, the suit has not been filed within the period of three years
thereafter. Hence, this decision is of absolutely no assistance to the
appellant.
15.6. The Division Bench of this court in Balieshwari’s case held
that when the plaintiff is aware of encumbrances in 2013 itself, a suit
challenging the encumbrance in 2017 was barred by limitation and plaint
was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rrule 11 CPC.
34/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
15.7. In Raghvendra Sharam Singh‘s case, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, refering to Article 59 on the Limitation Act, held that suit which is
cleverly drafted to overcome the bar of limitation, can be noticed from
averments in the plaint and the plaint can be rejected in exercise of
powers and Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
15.8. In Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in
2020 SCC Online SC 562), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sale
deed of the year 2009 can not be challenged in the year 2014 and claim of
the plaintiff that a copy of the index that was obtained only in November
2014, would not constitute a cause of action for filing a suit.
15.9. In Rajiv Gupta‘s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
limitation commenced from the date when the plaintiff first had
knowledge of the sale deed and suit filed beyond 3 years, contemplated
in Article 59 would be barred. In Revathi’s case this court held that when
the plaintiff was put on which of an earlier decree, declaring her sisters
as legal heir, the suit filed after 8 years, after barring to knowledge, was
barred by limitation.
35/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
15.10. In Umadevi’s cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court, applying
Article 110 of the Limitation Act, held that suit by a person excluded
from the joint family properties, limitation to enforce a right to a share
therein, would commence from the date when exclusion becomes known
to the plaintiff. This decision however, in my opinion, may not be
relevant for purpose of the deciding the present appeal which arises only
out of an application for rejection of plaint for which the determinative
factors are entirely different.
15.11. In Nikhila Divyang Mehta, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that even as per the plaint averments, when it was clear that plaintiff
acquired knowledge about the will and codicil in November 2007 and had
filed a suit beyond the period of limitation, and though in the plaint it has
been averred that the plaintiff came to know about the will and codicil in
the first week of November 2017, when it was evident from the plaint
averments the plaintiff had knowledge of the will and codicil even in the
first of November 2014, the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation
Applying ratio laid down in above decision as well, the only point that
36/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
requires consideration is whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the
partition deed dated 30.03.1985 even earlier in point of time as
contended in the plaint to be in 2018, on the dated of enquiry before
DRO. It is clear from the plaint averments, itself that the plaintiff was
put notice about the partition deed in July 2002 itself. The plaintiff
having not challenged the partition deed within a period of 3 years from
the date of receipt of the said reply notice, the suit filed is clearly and
hopelessly barred by law of limitation.
16. Result in CMP.No.5759 of 2026:
I do not find any new grounds raised in this petition, and all these
grounds have already been raised in the first appeal. Hence, I do not see
any merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. In any Writ the additional
grounds have also been taken into consideration. Accordingly, this Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
17. Result in A.S:
I do not find any error committed by the trial court warranting
interference in the first appeal. Hence, this Appeal suit is dismissed with
37/40https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026costs.
30.03.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/NoTO
1. The Principal District Judge,
Chengalpattu.
2.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Special Thasildar,
Land Acquisition,.
Chrompet, Chennai.
4.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
38/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI,J.
Ls
Pre- delivery Judgment made in
AS No.48 of 2026
39/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.48 of 2026
30.03.2026
40/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
