SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. Sundar, K.Rajasekar, JJ.
Mr.A.C.Raju - Appellant
Versus
Mrs.C.Prema Raju and ors. - Respondents
OSA.No.226 of 2023
Decided On : 29-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj for Mr.vaibhav Rangarajan Venkatesh
For the Respondent: Mr.S.S.Rajesh, Mr.Sharath Chandran

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.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - The appeal is against the dismissal of an application to reject the plaint for being barred by limitation and not disclosing a cause of action. The 1st respondent claimed fraud in the execution of a Settlement Deed. The court underscored that knowledge of the transaction arose only recently, thus affecting the limitation period. (Paras 1, 10, 11, 28)

(B) Fraud and Misrepresentation - The court noted that the plaintiff's claim of being misled into signing a Settlement Deed, represented as a Power of Attorney, lacked merit. The plaintiff's admission of the document’s execution and her understanding negated claims of undue influence and fraud. (Paras 7, 26)

(C) Vexatious Litigation - The court observed that the suit's intention to benefit the elder son indicated a lack of bona fide grievance, warranting the rejection of the plaint. (Paras 25, 29)

Facts of the case:
The appellant and 1st respondent executed a Settlement Deed in favor of their daughter; however, the plaintiff later contested its validity, alleging fraud and undue influence by her husband.

Findings of Court:
The suit was characterized as vexatious and lacking a legitimate cause, justifying rejection of the plaint.

Issues: Whether the plaint was legally actionable or barred by limitation due to the timing of the plaintiff's knowledge of the Settlement Deed's nature.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a bona fide grievance coupled with manipulation of facts to suit the limitations defense warranted the suit's dismissal.

Result: Appeal allowed; plaint rejected.

Table of Content
1. factual background of property ownership and settlement (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. allegations of fraud regarding the settlement deed (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. issue of cause and timing for limitation (Para 10 , 11)
4. judicial precedents on order 7 rule 11 of cpc (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. assessment of plaintiff's claims and their veracity (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. court's final ruling on plaint rejection (Para 28 , 29)

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 construction came after obtaining building plan approval from the Chennai Corporation and other statutory authorities in the year 2012. It is now admitted that the new residential building in the property consists of stilt + 2 floors.

(5)The appellant and the 1st respondent jointly executed a Settlement Deed which is registered as Doc.No.3948/2014 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, in favour of their daughter, the 2nd respondent herein. From the Settlement Deed, it is seen that the appellant and the 1st respondent executed the same in favour of their daughter, the 2nd respondent herein on their own volition and free will and out of love and affection. Though the settlors have covenanted that the settlement is irrevocable, they however reserved / retained life estate. Nine years later, the 1st respondent/wife has filed a suit in CS.No.43/2023 to declare the Settlement Deed dated 11.09.2014 as null and void and for granting a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from in any way creating any encumbrance over the suit property.

(6)In the plaint, it is the case of the 1st respondent, the wife of the appellant herein that she and the appellant were carrying out a lot of business and the family is holding a lot of properties in and around Chennai and both of them have sufficient independent means and financial independence. Though it is admitted that the relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent was very cordial and that she blindly believed all that the appellant would say, it is contended that the appellant defrauded her by getting the document of Settlement registered under the pretext that it was a Power of Attorney Deed authorising the appellant to mobilize funds by applying for Bank loan on the strength of the property as security which is required for completing the new construction in the suit property. Stating that the 1st respondent/plaintiff agreed to execute a Power of Attorney with an intention to complete the construction of a dream home, it is contended that the document was executed by the plaintiff without knowing the contents and the nature of transaction. It is alleged that the appellant fraudulently usurped the plaintiff's share in the suit property by getting the Settlement Deed from her with a mala fide intention. It is further stated that the plaintiff executed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top