BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON: 12.03.2025 DELIVERED ON: 18 .03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.187 of 2024 and CMP(MD).No.795 of 2024

1.S.Annamalai

2.A.Sivasubramanian ....Petitioners/Petitioners Vs

1.Minor A.Rajalakshmi

2.Minor A.Kanishka

3.Minor.A.Sivakathiresan ....Respondents/Respondents (Minors 1 to 3 represented through their maternal grandfather and next friend Mr.N.Vidhyadharan)

PRAYE: Civil Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and executable order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.218 of 2023 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai dated 09.10.2023.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Rajaraman For Respondents :Mr.V.Ramakrishnan

O R D E R

The defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No.218 of 2023 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai have filed the present revision petition challenging the rejection of their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

2.A perusal of the plaint reveals that three minor children of the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the said suit for the relief of declaration that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties with ancestral nucleus with right of the plaintiffs as coparceners in them. The plaintiffs have further prayed for consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to honour the family arrangement dated 14.03.2022. The plaintiffs have further prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any way alienating the suit schedule properties and for other prayers.

3.The minor plaintiffs in the said suit are represented by their maternal grandfather. The defendants 1 and 3 who are the father and grandfather of the minor plaintiffs respectively have filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the plaint.

4.A perusal of the averments in the said affidavit reveals that the said application has been filed primarily on the ground that the minor plaintiffs' father and mother are alive and they are also arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. When the natural guardian of the minor plaintiffs are alive, the maternal grandfather cannot represent the minor plaintiffs. It is further contended that the maternal grandfather do not have any locustandi whatsoever to represent the minor plaintiffs when the parents are alive. It was also contended that the minor plaintiffs are in the custody of their mother namely the second defendant and in such circumstances, the maternal grandfather cannot represent the minor children as if they are in his custody.

5.It was further contended that some of the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties. The family properties have already been partitioned under registered deed dated 14.03.2022 has not been challenged by the plaintiffs. It is also contended that the properties that were not covered under the registered family partition were the subject matter of an agreement of an understanding dated 14.03.2022.

6.As far as the agreement of understanding is concerned, it covered the self-acquired and ancestral properties of the first defendant. Some of the properties stands in the name of the third defendant who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs. When the father and grandfather of the minor plaintiffs are alive, the grandchildren will not get any right over the suit schedule properties. The cause of action pleaded in the suit is illusory in nature and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

7.The trial Court after considering the submissions made on either side, has found that that there is pleading to the effect that the parents of the minor plaintiffs namely defendants 1 and 2 are acting adverse to the right and interest of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the plaint averments alone can be relied upon.

8.The trial Court further found that the defendants 1 and 2 who are the parents of the plaintiffs have acted adverse to the rights of the plaint