2026:MHC:75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.19 of 2024

and C.M.P.No.63 of 2024

1.D.Revathy

2.D.Saroja

3.D.Arun Kumar

4.D.Jayaraman

5.D.Rajesh

6.D.Dharani

7.D.Gopi

8.D.Raghu

9.D.Padmavathy

10.D.Sudha ... Petitioners

vs.

C.Venkatraman (Died)

1.J.Vembuli

2.J.Lakshmi (Respondents 1 and 2 Co-defendants not necessary parties vide court order dated 27.10.2025 made in CRP.No.19 of 2024 and CMP.No.63 of 2024)

3.V.Pushpa

4.V.Ulaganathan

5.K.Sasikala

6.V.Akalya ... Respondents (Respondents 4 to 7 were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent as per order in I.A.No.94 of 2018 dated 16.04.2018)

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.26 of 2012 in O.S.No.11 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu and consequently allow the same in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.L.Ganesh For R3 to R6 : Mr.V.Rajesh

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu in I.A.No.26 of 2012 in O.S.No.11 of 2011, dated 30.03.2023 dismissing the application filed by the defendants 1 to 10 seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs 2 to 5/respondents 3 to 6 namely C.Venkataraman filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.11 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu. Pending suit, he died and his legal representatives namely wife and children/respondents 3 to 6 were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5. According to the plaintiffs, 1 acre and 38 cents of land in S.No.139 in Nemulicheri Village, Chrompet, Chennai was purchased by one Kallappa Pillai on 28.05.1896 under the Registered Document No.1157 of 1896. He died intestate leaving behind his only son Kanniga Pillai. The said Kanniga Pillai purchased 77 cents in S.No.91/1B in Nemulicheri Village, Chrompet under the Registered Document No.1035 of 1926 and enjoyed all the properties till his death on 01.07.1957. He died intestate leaving behind his daughters Kuppammal, Nagammal, Chellammal and his son Ethiraj Pillai. The deceased Plaintiff-

C.Venkataraman claims right under Chellammal. The 1^st defendant/1^st petitioner claims right under Ethiraj Pillai. The defendants 2 to 10/petitioners 2 to 10 claim right under Kuppammal. The defendants 11 and

12 claim right under Nagammal.

3. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs (original deceased plaintiff-Venkatraman and other sharers) executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of 1^st defendant-D.Revathy on 03.10.1996 in respect of the suit property. It is stated that though the said Power Deed was executed enabling the 1^st defendant to sell/lease/gift or mortgage the suit property, cunningly the 1^st defendant executed a Released Deed dated 14.11.1996 in Document No.2773 of 1997 in favour of her father deceased-Ethiraj Pillai. Subsequently, the said Power Deed was cancelled by Jayraman on 24.04.1998. Notwithstanding the cancellation of Power Deed, the 1^st defendant sold 71 cents of land in favour of Immaculate Conception Church and the said sale has not been questioned by the plaintiffs. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in respect of remaining extent of properties in 1 acre 44 cents. According to the plaintiffs, the remaining extent of 1 acre 44 cents have been in joint possession of parties and consequently, laid a suit for partition.

4. The defendants 1 to 10 in the suit filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs and other co-owners already executed a Release Deed in favour of 1^st defendant’s father Either Pillai in the year 1996 and the same has been admitted by the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the suit for partition would not lie. It was also stated that one of the co-owner, who was also party to the Power Deed l