Madras High Court
CRP/534/2026 of Latha-D3 Vs Kuppan on 16 October 2026
CRP No. 534 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 534 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010111202026}
1. Latha-D3
D/o. Raman,
2. Bhuvaneshwari -D4
D/o. Raman,
3. Sekar - D6
S/o. Munusamy,
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Kuppan
S/o. Chinnaraji,
Sankar (Died),
C. Gajendiran (Died)
2. R. Velu
3. Sundaramoorthy
4. The Sub Registrar
Joint - I, Arakkonam
Residing at Arakkonam Town and Taluk,
Ranipet District.
Perumal (Died).
5. S. Sujatha
W/o. Sankar,
6. S. Jaisri
D/o. Sankar,
CRP No. 534 of 2026
7. S. Nithya
D/o. Sankar,
8. S. Suganya
D/o. Sankar,
9. S. Sekar
S/o. Sankar,
10.P. Yogalakshmi
W/o. Perumal,
11.P. Rajesh
S/o. Perumal,
12.Radhika
D/o. Perumal,
13.Rani
W/o. Gajendiran,
14.Murali
S/o. Gajendiran,
15.Sridhar
S/o. Gajendiran,
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Learned District Munsif Judge, at Sholinghur, Ranipet District, dismissed IA
No.7 of 2025 in OS No.116 of 2016 and allow the above CRP.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Samuel Raja
CRP No. 534 of 2026
For Respondent(s):
R1 to R3 served No appearance
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.7 of 2025 in OS No.116 of 2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif Judge, Sholinghur, Ranipet, wherein the application filed by the petitioners /defendants 3, 4 and 6 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint came to be dismissed by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below. Though the respondents has been served with notice and their names have also been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance either in person or through counsel.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in OS No.116 of 2016 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.
4. The petitioners, who are defendants 3, 4 and 6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the actual value of the suit property exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below and that the
CRP No. 534 of 2026
plaintiffs have undervalued the suit. Hence, the plaint has to be rejected.
5. The Court below came to a conclusion that the issue that has to be decided in this case is as to whether the suit property is a land, as contended by the plaintiffs or whether the suit properties had already been converted into plots in the year 2022 itself, as alleged by the defendants and consequently, the value of the property based on the market value will be much more as a result of which the suit itself will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction and that this issue cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and that, at the best, it can only be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of CPC.
6. The reasoning given by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. While dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court can only go by the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint. In the case in hand, the defendant has to put forth the plea that the suit properties have already been converted into plots and independently, the plaintiffs have undervalued the property and filed the suit. This issue cannot be gone into in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
CRP No. 534 of 2026
7. In view of the above, the order passed by the Court below is sustained. There shall be a direction to the learned District Munsif, Sholinghur, to decide the issue of undervaluation as a preliminary issue, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The District Munsif Judge, at Sholinghur, Ranipet District.
CRP No. 534 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J RKA CRP No. 534 of 2026 16.10.2026