Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S.Sundar, K.Rajasekar
A.C.Raju – Appellant
Versus
C.Prema Raju – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
(1)The above appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit in CS.No.43/2023 as against the order dated 27.09.2023 dismissing the application filed by him in A.No.2143/2023 to reject the plaint in CS.No.43/2023.
(2)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
(3)The parties in this appeal are close relatives. The appellant is the husband of 1st respondent and father of 2nd respondent. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the 1st respondent have two more sons and they are Mr.C.Prakash Kumar and Mr.C.Haribabu who are not parties in the suit or in the appeal. The suit property is a land admeasuring an extent of 3856 sq.ft [1 ground and 1456 sq.ft.] with a residential building consisting of stilt plus two floors situated at Plot No.4206, New Door No.8, T Block, 8th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.
(4)Originally, the property was purchased by the appellant and the 1st respondent under two Sale Deeds dated 30.03.1994 and 24.02.1994 respectively, thereby getting 50% of the property for each of them. It is admitted that the whole property was jointly enjoyed by them. The building in the property was demolished and a new constru
The court affirmed the requirement for suits to disclose genuine causes of action, rejecting cases that are manifestly vexatious or rely on clever drafting to circumvent established legal limitations....
A plaint is subject to rejection if it fails to disclose a legitimate cause of action or is manifestly vexatious, especially when fraudulent claims are evident.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming undue influence to establish that the other party had the ability to dominate their will, which was not proven in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property was purchased with the income of the father, and the settlement deeds were obtained through fraud and coercion, leading to the en....
To strike off the suit - where the suit itself is an abuse of the process of the Court, the same can be struck off exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court - when the subsequent suit was....
The unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed by the parents is illegal and without jurisdiction. The cancellation of settlement deed by the parents is non-est in law. The suit filed in the year....
The court emphasized that for claims of undue influence, specific evidence must be provided, and familial relationships alone do not presume such influence, affirming the validity of the executed Set....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is manifestly vexatious, does not disclose a clear right to sue, and is barred by limitation, particularly when the plaintiff does no....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
