# S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 372
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-04-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3624 of 2024
- **Bench:** B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-valliammai-others-v-s-ramanathan-another-39305
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Correctness or otherwise of the impugned order granting rejection
of the plaint.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 -
Application of Or.II r.2 not a ground for rejection of plaint
u/Or.VII r.11(d) - Original owner and his wife-appellant No.1
herein filed the first suit against defendant No.1-son, seeking
inter alia permanent injunction - After the death of the original
owner, Appellants herein (his wife and daughters) filed
the second suit - Respondent-defendants filed application
u/Or.VII r.11 in the second suit seeking rejection of the plaint
contending that the said suit was barred u/Or.II r.2 - Application
dismissed by trial court holding inter alia that the second
suit was not barred on account of Or.II r.2 as the causes of
action and properties involved in the two suits were distinct
and separate - Order set aside by High Court by analysing
the averments in the first suit in juxtaposition with the second
suit and holding that the cause of action for both the suits
was one and the same and the suit was barred u/Or.II r.2 -
Revision petition filed by the defendants was allowed; plaint
was rejected u/Or.VII r.11- Interference with:
Held: Order of High Court set aside - Plea u/Or.II r.2 cannot be a
basis or a ground for rejection of the plaint - In a case where Or.II
r.2 applies, there is no legal bar to filing a suit but the reliefs sought
for or the claims made therein cannot be granted if the conditions
mentioned therein apply - For arriving at such a conclusion, there
has to be evidence let in in order to determine whether the provision
of Or.II r.2 would apply to the suit or not - On the other hand, in the
* Author
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
239
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
case of Or.VII r.11(d), if there is express or implied bar for filing of
a suit under any law then on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it
has to be rejected - The suit need not proceed to record evidence
on merits but only to the extent where evidence is necessary to be
recorded for the purpose of rejection of the plaint such as on the
ground of the suit being bit by law of limitation or on the principle
of res judicata - Thus, the bar created by any law to the filing of
a suit is different from a plaintiff suing for certain claims or reliefs
which he could not have claimed or sued having regard to Or.II
r.2 - Therefore, the application of Or.II r.2 cannot be construed to be
a ground for rejection of the plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d) - In the present
case, the approach of the High Court in analysing the averments
made in the second suit as if it is evidence, in juxtaposition with
the averments made in the first suit was improper - Order of
the trial court in the second suit restored along with the plaint.
[Paras 5.9, 5.21, 8.1, 9]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 - Two
suits, if distinct and separate - Distinctions to be analysed
while analysing the plaints in the first/former suit and a
subsequent suit:
Held: On a conjoint reading of Or.II r.2 with Or.VII r.11(d), it emerges
that the plea under Or.II r.2 cannot be a basis or a ground for
rejection of the plaint - It is for the defendant to establish by way
of evidence, the bar of the subsequent suit u Or.II r.2 filed by the
very same plaintiff - In such an event, on a comparative analysis
of the plaint filed in the first suit and the plaint filed in the second
suit, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the second suit
was filed on an identical cause of action which led to the filing of
the first suit and there was an omission to make the claim or to
reserve the reliefs to be claimed in the first suit in a subsequent
suit, then the bar u/Or.II r.2 would apply to the subsequent suit
or the second suit - Then the claims or reliefs not maintainable
would be rejected as the plaintiff could not have sued for those
reliefs by filing a second suit, although technically, the filing of
such a suit was not barred by any law - On the other

## Text

_Characters 0–39,885 of 76,167. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39885 for what follows._

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 238 : 2026 INSC 372
S. Valliammai & Others
v.
S. Ramanathan & Another
(Civil Appeal No. 3624 of 2024)
16 April 2026
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Correctness or otherwise of the impugned order granting rejection
of the plaint.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 -
Application of Or.II r.2 not a ground for rejection of plaint
u/Or.VII r.11(d) - Original owner and his wife-appellant No.1
herein filed the first suit against defendant No.1-son, seeking
inter alia permanent injunction - After the death of the original
owner, Appellants herein (his wife and daughters) filed
the second suit - Respondent-defendants filed application
u/Or.VII r.11 in the second suit seeking rejection of the plaint
contending that the said suit was barred u/Or.II r.2 - Application
dismissed by trial court holding inter alia that the second
suit was not barred on account of Or.II r.2 as the causes of
action and properties involved in the two suits were distinct
and separate - Order set aside by High Court by analysing
the averments in the first suit in juxtaposition with the second
suit and holding that the cause of action for both the suits
was one and the same and the suit was barred u/Or.II r.2 -
Revision petition filed by the defendants was allowed; plaint
was rejected u/Or.VII r.11- Interference with:
Held: Order of High Court set aside - Plea u/Or.II r.2 cannot be a
basis or a ground for rejection of the plaint - In a case where Or.II
r.2 applies, there is no legal bar to filing a suit but the reliefs sought
for or the claims made therein cannot be granted if the conditions
mentioned therein apply - For arriving at such a conclusion, there
has to be evidence let in in order to determine whether the provision
of Or.II r.2 would apply to the suit or not - On the other hand, in the
* Author
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
239
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
case of Or.VII r.11(d), if there is express or implied bar for filing of
a suit under any law then on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it
has to be rejected - The suit need not proceed to record evidence
on merits but only to the extent where evidence is necessary to be
recorded for the purpose of rejection of the plaint such as on the
ground of the suit being bit by law of limitation or on the principle
of res judicata - Thus, the bar created by any law to the filing of
a suit is different from a plaintiff suing for certain claims or reliefs
which he could not have claimed or sued having regard to Or.II
r.2 - Therefore, the application of Or.II r.2 cannot be construed to be
a ground for rejection of the plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d) - In the present
case, the approach of the High Court in analysing the averments
made in the second suit as if it is evidence, in juxtaposition with
the averments made in the first suit was improper - Order of
the trial court in the second suit restored along with the plaint.
[Paras 5.9, 5.21, 8.1, 9]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 - Two
suits, if distinct and separate - Distinctions to be analysed
while analysing the plaints in the first/former suit and a
subsequent suit:
Held: On a conjoint reading of Or.II r.2 with Or.VII r.11(d), it emerges
that the plea under Or.II r.2 cannot be a basis or a ground for
rejection of the plaint - It is for the defendant to establish by way
of evidence, the bar of the subsequent suit u Or.II r.2 filed by the
very same plaintiff - In such an event, on a comparative analysis
of the plaint filed in the first suit and the plaint filed in the second
suit, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the second suit
was filed on an identical cause of action which led to the filing of
the first suit and there was an omission to make the claim or to
reserve the reliefs to be claimed in the first suit in a subsequent
suit, then the bar u/Or.II r.2 would apply to the subsequent suit
or the second suit - Then the claims or reliefs not maintainable
would be rejected as the plaintiff could not have sued for those
reliefs by filing a second suit, although technically, the filing of
such a suit was not barred by any law - On the other hand, if the
cause of action for filing the second suit is totally distinct from the
cause of action from filing the first suit and the reliefs claimed are
distinct, subject-matter of the suits are different and if the parties
to the suit are also different then in such a case, the plea u/Or.II
r.2 would not arise at all. [Para 7]
240
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 - "barred
by any law"; "statement in the plaint"- Whether the suit is
barred by any law has to be determined from the statement in
the plaint - Application of Or.II r.2 does not result in rejection
of the plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d):
Held: Or.VII r.11(d) deals with rejection of plaint and not the right
to sue being barred - A rejection of a plaint is as per clauses (a)
to (f) mentioned in Or.VII r.11 - Or.VII r.11(d) states that the plaint
shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in
the plaint to be barred by any law - Therefore, the crucial words
are, the filing of the suit being barred by any law - The issue,
whether the suit is barred by any law has to be determined
from the statement in the plaint - The expression "statement
in the plaint" would mean not only a meaningful reading of the
averments in the plaint but also a meaningful reading of the
documents appended to the plaint - Thus, it is on a meaningful
reading of the plaint and the annexed documents, the suit should
appear to be barred by any law - Hence, the written statement or
any other document cannot be taken into consideration in order
to ascertain whether the suit is barred by any law - When the
expression "barred by any law" is read in juxtaposition with Or.II
r.2, it is already noted that Or.II r.2 does not bar the filing of any
suit but sub-rules (2) and (3) forbids the suing for certain claims
which have been relinquished or certain reliefs which have been
omitted to sue in the earlier suit in respect of which a plaintiff
cannot sue for those claims or reliefs by filing a subsequent
suit - On the other hand, the bar to filing of any suit in law u/
Or.VII r.11(d) is distinct - The law must bar the filing of a suit
either by an express bar or by an implied bar - Under Or.II r.2,
the right to sue is taken away in terms of sub-rules (2) and (3)
thereof which means that the suit could not have been filed at
all - On the other hand, u/Or.VII r.11 (d), there is "no bar to
sue" but "the suit is barred by law from being filed" - There is a
subtle but distinct difference between the two - If the conditions
under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Or.II r.2 are satisfied in a case, it
would be a case of there being a curtailment of the right to sue
for the claims relinquished or omitted in the earlier suit - It is not
a case where the plaint has to be rejected as it is barred by the
provision of Or.II r.2 [sub-rules (2) and (3)] - The application of
Or.II r.2 to a case can result in rejection of reliefs being granted
to a plaintiff which may, in certain cases, also result in dismissal
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
241
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
of the suit itself - But it does not result in rejection of the plaint
u/Or.VII r.11(d). [Paras 5.17-5.20]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.II r.2 - Bar to sue vis-à-vis
suit being barred by law:
Held: Bar to sue is distinct from a suit being barred by any law -
In the former, a suit cannot be commenced at all and, therefore,
would have to be dismissed on the application of Or.II r.2, while in
the latter case, a suit can be commenced but is not entertainable
owing to a bar in law - Under Or.II r.2, a suit can be dismissed after
recording evidence depending upon the facts and circumstances
of the case and on the analysis of the cause of action in a former
suit and a subsequent suit - In the case of rejection of a plaint,
recording of evidence on the bar to file a suit may not be necessary
in all circumstances - It all depends on the nature of the bar -
Further, the right to sue is circumscribed by what is stated u/Or.II
rr.1 and 2 - Or.II r.2(1) states that every suit shall include the
whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect
of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion
of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the
court - With regard to relinquishment of part of the claim and
omission to sue for one of several reliefs, the consequences are
stated in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Or.II r.2 - Thus, under the said
sub-rules the right to sue in respect of relinquishment of a claim
or omitted reliefs in the absence of conditions occurring therein
would not arise - Therefore, sub-rules (2) and (3) of Or.II r.2 deal
with claims and reliefs. [Paras 5.13, 5.15]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.II r.2 - Application of - Test
for. [Paras 5.8, 5.9]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.II r.1 and 2 - Object -
Difference between Or.II r.1 and 2. [Paras 5.1-5.4]
Words and Phrases - "same cause of action"; "sue",
discussed. [Paras 5.7, 5.14]
Case Law Cited
N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma (Dead) by proposed LRs.
[2005] Supp. 1 SCR 411 : (2005) 5 SCC 548; State Bank of India
v. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2013] 12 SCR 617 : (2014) 3
SCC 595-602 - distinguished.
242
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [1978] 1 SCR 742 : (1977) 4
SCC 467; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner
[2004] 1 SCR 1004 : (2004) 3 SCC 137; Popat and Kotecha
Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association [2005] Supp.
2 SCR 1030 : (2005) 7 SCC 510; Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar
Singh Gill [1983] 1 SCR 702 : (1982) 3 SCC 487; Raptakos
Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [1998] Supp. 1 SCR 485 :
(1998) 7 SCC 184; Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [2002]
Supp. 5 SCR 491 : (2003) 1 SCC 557; R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu
[2016] 3 SCR 221 : (2016) 14 SCC 275; Kuldeep Singh Pathania
v. Bikram Singh Jaryal [2017] 1 SCR 915 : (2017) 5 SCC 345;
Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Private Ltd. [2017] 7
SCR 557 : (2018) 11 SCC 780; Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v.
Axis Bank Ltd. [2019] 8 SCR 1058 : (2019) 7 SCC 158; Sri
Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose [2022] 3 SCR 302 : (2022) 7
SCC 731; Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast
Cuddalore Vinyls Limited [2025] 2 SCR 123 : 2025 SCC OnLine
82 - referred to.
B. Shambumal v. State Bank of Mysore, AIR 1971 Mys. 156 ; State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Mool Chand, AIR 1972 All. 413 - referred to.
Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co., AIR 1936 Lah 1021;
Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian, 1948 SCC OnLine
PC 44 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Webster Dictionary; Strouds' Judicial Dictionary, (Fifth Edition,
p.2540) - referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order II
Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; First suit; Second
suit; Plaint in second suit rejected; Rejection of plaint; Former
suit; Subsequent suit; "same cause of action"; "sue"; Averments
made in the second suit; Averments made in the first suit; Plaint
restored; Cause of action for both suits same.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
243
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3624 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CRPPD No. 4472 of 2013.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv., M/s K J John and Co, Ms. Surekha
Raman, Amarjit Singh Bedi, B. S. Jhothiraman, Shreyash Kumar,
Yashwant Sanjenbam, Sidharth Nair, Harshit Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, Ms. Isha Singh,
C. K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K Poulose.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
The appellants herein are aggrieved by the impugned order dated
11.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
C.R.P.(PD) No.4472 of 2013 whereby the Civil Revision Petition
filed by the respondents herein was allowed and the order dated
24.06.2013 passed by the VIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in O.S. No.2320 of
2013 (hereinafter called the 'second suit' for the sake of convenience)
was set aside. Consequently, the plaint in the second suit was rejected.
The trial court, by the said order, had rejected I.A. No.7712/2013
filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") and allowed I.A.
No.6381/2013 filed by the appellants herein under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.
1.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in
terms of their status and position before the trial court in O.S.
No.2320 of 2013 (the second suit).
1.2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Late Shri M.
Sokkalingam ("original owner") and his wife S Valliammai-
244
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
appellant No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff
No.1) entered into a partition of family properties by way of
oral settlement dated 01.11.2011 with their children, i.e., two
daughters namely Meena - appellant No.2 herein (hereinafter
referred to as plaintiff No.2) and Muthumeena - appellant No.3
herein (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff No.3") and son namely,
S. Ramanathan - respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred
to as defendant No.1). According to the oral settlement, plaintiff
Nos.2 and 3 received Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores)
each through cheques and executed deeds dated 02.11.2011,
relinquishing their share in the properties in favour of their
brother-defendant No.1.
1.3 Thereafter on 04.11.2011, the original owner executed a
registered Power of Attorney bearing Document No.724 of
2011 in favour of Shri E.J. Ayyappan - respondent No.2 herein
(herein referred to as "defendant No.2"), with respect to the
following properties:
i)
Regent Place bearing R.S. No.3907/2A, Survey No.C-263
(part) New Survey No.43 situated in Ward E, Block No.6,
admeasuring 1 acre 56 cents, situated at 374, 375 and
376, Peyton Road, Opposite Ratan Tata Officer's Home,
Ootacamund, Nilgiris ("Ooty (Nilgiris) property", for the
sake of convenience) (Schedule 'A' Property).
ii)
Vacant land situated at Door No.1/29, Rayavaram
Main Road, (Kadiyapatti village), Ramachandrapuram,
Panangudi, Vettam, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai
District, comprised in Old Survey No.177 (Natham) New
Survey No.90/11 ("Pudukottai property", for the sake of
convenience) (Schedule 'B' Property)
1.4 Pursuant thereto, settlement deeds dated 09.11.2011 and
10.11.2011 with respect to the aforesaid properties were
executed in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2, as
the power of attorney of the original owner.
1.5 Subsequently, on 30.07.2012, plaintiff No.1 and the original
owner instituted O.S. No.4722 of 2012 ('first suit') before the VIIth
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against defendant
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
245
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
No.1 (in the second suit), seeking the relief of permanent
injunction and peaceful possession and enjoyment of:
i)
property situated at Old Door No.23, Harrington Avenue,
subsequently at Door No.48, fifth avenue and presently
Door No.2, fifth avenue, Harrington road, Chetpet,
Chennai-600031 ("Chennai property", for the sake of
convenience) ("Schedule 'A'" therein); and
ii)
operation of the cash deposits, stocks, shared, debentures,
mutual fund deposit etc lying in A/c No.axcess plus
42710180701, 42710180698, 42705092018 with Standard
Chartered Bank, No.1, Rajaji Salai, Parrys, Chennai-600104
("Schedule 'B'" therein).
1.6 In the aforesaid suit, it was alleged that defendant No.1, by
intimidating the original owner as well as plaintiff No.1 in the
second suit and by exploiting their emotions, forced them to
execute some documents on 04.11.2011. Further, defendant
No.1 compelled them to execute the settlement deed dated
04.11.2011, settling the property described in Schedule 'A'
therein to the son of defendant No.1 after reserving life interest
for plaintiff No.1.
1.7 During the pendency of the aforesaid first suit, the original
owner, M. Sokkalingam, passed away on 13.03.2013.
1.8 Subsequently, the appellant-plaintiffs herein (wife and the
daughters of plaintiff No.1 in the first suit) instituted O.S.
No.2320 of 2013 ("second suit") on 08.04.2013 before the
trial court, seeking a declaration that the Power of Attorney
dated 04.11.2011, registered as Doc. No.724/2011 was
illegal, null and void, and the same was obtained by sheer
misrepresentation, coercion, fraud and undue influence together
with all consequential acts and deeds if any made on the strength
of the power of attorney dated 04.11.2011 and for permanent
injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and
servants from alienating the Schedules 'A' and 'B' properties.
Further, the plaintiffs also filed I.A. No.6381/2013 under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code seeking an interim injunction,
restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the
suit properties pending disposal of the suit.
246
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1.9
Subsequently, the respondent-defendants preferred I.A.
No.7712 of 2013 in the second suit under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code seeking rejection of the plaint by contending that
the said suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code.
1.10 The trial court by common order dated 24.06.2013, dismissed
I.A. No.7712/2013 filed by the defendants being not
maintainable and allowed I.A. No.6381/2013 filed by the
plaintiff, granting temporary injunction against the defendants
restraining alienation and encumbrance of the suit properties
pending disposal of the suit. It was held that the second suit
was not barred on account of Order II Rule 2 of the Code
as the causes of action and properties involved in the two
suits were distinct and separate and that the plaintiffs came
to know about the General Power of Attorney only after the
written statement was filed by the defendant No.1 in the first
suit and at that juncture, the cause of action arose. The trial
court further doubted the manner in which the suit properties
had been settled through a third party i.e., defendant No.2.
1.11 Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred C.R.P.(PD) No.4472
of 2013 before the Madras High Court. By way of impugned
order dated 11.07.2019, the High Court allowed the revision
petition filed by the defendants and set aside the Trial Court's
order in O.S. No.2320 of 2013 and thereby rejected the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The Court observed
that upon perusal of the plaint in O.S. No.4722/2012, it was
apparent that the plaintiffs were aware of the execution of the
Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2011. It was further observed
that the cause of action for both the suits was one and the
same and that the plaintiffs were parties and privy to all the
events, including the oral settlement and subsequent execution
of the Power of Attorney. It was further held that the trial court
deviated from its jurisdiction by going into the aspect of why
and for what purpose the Power of Attorney was executed,
brushing aside the fact that the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were
witnesses to the said document. The High Court expressed
that the trial court did not appreciate the fact that plaintiff No.2
herself wrote a letter requesting the Sub-Registrar, Periamet,
to undertake a home visit to register the Power of Attorney
in favour of defendant No.2, and therefore she subsequently
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
247
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
could not be allowed to take a contradictory stand to contend
that she came to know about the Power of Attorney only after
filing of the written statement by defendant No.1 in the first suit.
1.12 Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present
civil appeal.
2.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to distill the averments of
the plaint in O.S. No.4722 of 2012 which is the first suit and O.S.
No.2320 of 2013 which is the second suit.
Averments of Plaint in O.S. No.4722 of 2012 (First Suit):
2.1 The plaintiffs in the said suit are the parents of the defendant
therein (defendant No.1 in the second suit). They averred that
they are residing at Door No.2, Vth Avenue, Harrington Road,
Chennai-600031; the property more fully described in Schedule
'A' thereunder which is the absolute property of plaintiff No.1
and he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.
The plaintiffs have three children, namely, two daughters and
defendant-son who is an advocate. The plaintiffs were residing
in Schedule 'A' property and their daughters are married and
settled in USA.
2.1.1 That their defendant-son had been insisting the plaintiffs to
part with all their properties including properties mentioned
in Schedules 'A' and 'B'.
2.1.2 That plaintiff No.2 was sick and bedridden most of the
times and the plaintiffs are helpless as they have to live
in constant fear and anxiety because of the intimidating
tactics of the defendant who was none other than their
son. That the plaintiff No.2 has several ailments and
suffered from disorientation and had suffered a heart
attack in the month of July 2011 and was also hospitalized.
Instead of attending to his parents, the defendant - son
has been insisting on the plaintiffs parting with their
properties. On 24.08.2011, the defendant physically
assaulted and verbally abused plaintiff No.2 for not settling
the property on him.
2.1.3 That owing to the intimidation of the defendant, plaintiff
No.2 was forced to execute some documents on
248
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
04.11.2011 when the Registrar took the thumb impression
of the plaintiff No.2 on a settlement deed dated 04.11.2011
settling Schedule 'A' property in favour of defendant - son
after reserving life interest in the said property for plaintiff
No.1. The defendant has also taken away the original title
deeds and documents from the house of the plaintiffs.
2.1.4 Further, the plaintiffs had valuable shares and securities
which they had liquidated and divided the amount by
giving their two daughters a lesser amount as compared
to the defendant-son and a small balance was deposited
in the bank account of plaintiff No.1 for the last stages
of their life. The plaintiffs are residing in Schedule 'A'
property therein and they do not have any independent
source of income except the interest income from the
bank account more fully described as Schedule 'B' in
the plaint.
2.1.5 That the defendant was pestering the plaintiffs to change
the Schedule 'B' account into a joint account by including
him as a joint account holder along with the plaintiffs
which the plaintiffs were not willing to do so. That the
plaintiffs were a respectable family from Chettinad and
therefore had not lodged any police complaint.
2.1.6 It was also averred that the greed of the defendant had
not been satisfied with the settlement deed executed by
compelling plaintiff No.1 to part with properties such as
1.5 acres of land in Ooty with the Bungalow and several
valuable properties at Pudukottai District belonging
to plaintiff No.2. Hence, he was now eyeing the bank
account. That on 23.07.2012, the defendant demanded
plaintiff No.1 to include his name also in the bank account.
2.1.7 The defendant was living in his own house at Mylapore
and the plaintiffs were residing in the Schedule 'A'
property and even according to the settlement deed dated
04.11.2011, plaintiff No.1 was entitled for life interest over
the said property. However, the defendant frequently
visited the plaintiffs and bothered them mentally affecting
their peace and coming in the way of their enjoyment
of their property.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
249
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
2.1.8 The cause of action arose when the defendant demanded
his parents to part with all their properties and a settlement
deed was executed on 04.11.2011 and later on 23.07.2012
when the defendant came to the house and demanded the
plaintiff to convert the bank account into a joint account.
Plaintiffs were entirely dependent upon the interest yield
from the bank account and the plaintiffs were in constant
fear of the defendant.
2.1.9 The plaintiffs sought the following reliefs (in the first suit):
a)
Permanent injunction restraining the defendant,
his men, agents and servants from interfering with
the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the Schedule 'A' mentioned property;
b)
Permanent injunction restraining the defendant,
his men, agents and servants from interfering with
operation of Schedule 'B' bank account;
c)
Permanent injunction restraining the defendant
against exercising any undue influence, coercion,
threat, blackmailing against the plaintiff for transfer
or opening of joint bank account in respect of
Schedule 'B' bank account;
d)
To pay the cost of this suit; and
e)
Grant such other relief the Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of this case.
Averments in O.S. No.2320 of 2013 (Second Suit):
3.
This suit has been filed by the widow of late M. Sokkalingam as
plaintiff No.1 and their two daughters as plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 against
defendant No.1 who is the son of late M. Sokkalingam and defendant
No.2 who is his power of attorney holder.
3.1 According to the plaintiffs, M. Sokkalingam died intestate
on 13.03.2013 leaving the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to
jointly inherit the properties. Defendant No.2 was the friend
of defendant No.1 who has acted as the power agent of late
M. Sokkalingam under an illegal and invalid power of attorney
deed dated 04.11.2011 which is challenged.
250
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.2 That M. Sokkalingam had heart and kidney ailments and was
suffering from diabetes and other ailments. He had undergone
knee and heart surgeries and had been hospitalized for a number
of months and was in altered state of consciousness from mid
2010 to February, 2012. Often he would be disoriented and later
gain his consciousness after some interval. Around October
2011 to December, 2011, the problem became acute when he
had altered levels of consciousness for two to three months. He
was hospitalized in the month of July 2011 due to heart attack.
That late M. Sokkalingam and plaintiff No.1 were residing at
Door No.2, Vth Avenue, Harrington Road, Chennai-600031 and
plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, being their daughters were married and
settled in the United States of America and they used to visit
their parents now and then. Defendant No.1, who is the son,
has been greedy and money-minded and insisted plaintiff No.1
and her husband to part with all the properties to the exclusion
of his two sisters. Defendant No.1 has been adopting a hostile
attitude and tactics to take control of all the properties of his
father by blackmailing and threatening that he would commit
suicide if all the properties were not conveyed to him. That
plaintiff No.1 and her husband were stripped of all their moveable
and immoveable properties except the amount lying in the bank
account of plaintiff No.1 in Standard Chartered Bank, Chennai.
That defendant No.1 was continuously pestering plaintiff No.1
and her husband to convert the said bank account into a joint
bank account by including his name and by frequently calling the
officials of the Standard Chartered Bank by giving unnecessary
instructions to convert the bank account into a joint account
but the account holders being the parents of defendant No.1
were not willing to do so. Hence, they filed O.S. No.4722 of
2012 (first suit) on the file of the VIIth Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai seeking the relief for permanent injunction against
defendant No.1 from interfering with their possession of the
property and the bank account. The said suit is still pending.
That the parents of defendant No.1 had to live in constant fear
and anxiety because of the intimidating tactics of defendant
No.1 who is none other than their own son.
3.3 That plaintiff No.1 is a heart patient and her husband was
also a heart patient and defendant No.1, instead of lending
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
251
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
any help and being of solace to them was insisting on them
for parting with their properties. That on one occasion dated
24.08.2011, defendant No.1 came home at around 08:00 PM
and physically assaulted and verbally abused the handicapped
father for not settling the properties on him. Considering the
reputation of the family, no criminal complaint was lodged. That
defendant No.1 by intimidating plaintiff No.1 and her husband
(M. Sokkalingam) forced them to execute some documents on
04.11.2011 when her husband was in a semi-conscious state of
mind. The Registrar was brought to the house and the thumb
impression of M. Sokkalingam was obtained by force. He was
thus compelled to execute the settlement deed dated 04.11.2011
setting the property described in Schedule 'A' in the said plaint
to the defendant after reserving the life interest for the plaintiff
No.1. Defendant No.1 has also taken away all the original title
deeds and documents of the Schedule mentioned properties
from the house of the plaintiffs even earlier.
3.4 That on 04.11.2011, defendant No.1 got the thumb impression
of M. Sokkalingam without his knowledge on various papers
and the signatures of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 were also
obtained on various papers as witnesses to the documents
in which thumb impression of M. Sokkalingam were obtained
by force, fraud and without his knowledge since at that time
he was in a semi-conscious state of mind. That the rude
behaviour and inexorable greed of defendant No.1 prompted
plaintiff No.1 and her husband to file the suit i.e. O.S. No.4722
of 2012 (first suit) to allay their immediate apprehension. That
M. Sokkalingam made an inquiry with the help of plaintiff Nos.2
and 3 herein in the Registrar's office about any document
alleged to have been executed by him on 04.11.2011, when
the Registrar visited the house of plaintiff No.1 for the purpose
of the execution of the settlement deed. It is to the utter shock
and dismay the power of attorney dated 04.11.2011, bearing
Document No.724 of 2011 on the file of Sub-Registrar's office
(SRO), Periamet in favour of defendant No.2 was brought to his
notice. M. Sokkalingam had instructed his counsel to prepare
the case to declare the power of attorney dated 04.11.2011 on
the file of SRO, Periamet as invalid but before the suit could
be instituted he died.
252
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.5 That defendant No.1 was not invited by his father (M.
Sokkalingam) for his 80th birthday and his father wanted his
wife to perform his last rites but defendant No.1 ultimately
performed his last rites.
3.6 Defendant No.2 was stated to be appointed as the power agent
of M. Sokkalingam to execute the settlement deed in favour of
defendant No.1. That, M. Sokkalingam during the said period
was in a semi-conscious state of mind and defendant No.1 had
threatened and coerced all the family members to put signature
on the documents. That M. Sokkalingam never intended to settle
the Schedules 'A' and 'B' properties upon defendant No.1 as
the relationship between them was not cordial; rather was very
much strained. That the father was beaten by his son-defendant
No.1 and there was no love and affection between them.
3.7 That, M. Sokkalingam was a reputed member of the Chettiar
Community having trustworthy friends and relatives and there
was no occasion for him to choose defendant No.2, who is
an advocate and friend of defendant No.1 as the power agent
for the execution of the settlement deed. If at all, any such
document had to be executed by M. Sokkalingam, it would
have been done so at Chennai by appointing power agent to
present the settlement deed for registration. That the power
of attorney dated 04.11.2011, bearing Document No.724 of
2011 on the file of SRO, Periamet is per se illegal and void
and the same was executed by fraud, coercion and further as
the executant at the time of the execution was not in a sound
state of mind. Therefore, any consequential act on the strength
of the said power of attorney is also illegal and invalid. That
defendant No.1 is not entitled to have any absolute right over
the suit properties.
3.8 That the cause of action for the suit arose when M. Sokkalingam
died intestate on 13.03.2013 leaving the plaintiffs and the
defendant No.1 to jointly inherit the properties. On 04.11.2011,
when M. Sokkalingam was in a semi-conscious state of mind,
was compelled to put his thumb impression on some documents.
Hence, the plaintiffs sought following reliefs:
a)
Declare the Power of Attorney deed dated 04.11.2011
registered as Doc. No.724 of 2011 on the file of SRO,
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
253
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
Periamet, Chennai-600003 as illegal, null and void and
the same is obtained by sheer misrepresentation, coercion,
fraud and undue influence together with all consequential
acts and deeds if any made on the strength of the power
of attorney dated 04.11.2011;
b)
Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men,
agents and servants from alienating the Schedules 'A'
and 'B' properties;
c)
Grant such other relief as deemed fit and proper under
the circumstances of the case; and
d)
To pay the cost of the suit.
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code:
4.
Since the issue in this appeal pertains to the correctness or otherwise
of the impugned order granting rejection of the plaint, at this stage,
we deem it necessary to extract Order VII Rules 11 and 13 of
the Code which deal with the grounds for rejection of a plaint, as
under:
"11. Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in
the following cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct
the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court,
fails to do so;
(c)
where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the
plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped,
and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to
supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be
fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law:
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f)
where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision
of rule 9:
254
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court,
for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff
was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature
for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time
fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such
time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
xxx
xxx
xxx
13. Where rejection of plaint does not preclude
presentation of fresh plaint.-The rejection of the plaint
on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of
its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh
plaint in respect of the same cause of action."
4.1 In the instant case, an application was filed under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the Code where the ground of rejection of the
plaint was that the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law. In this regard, various decisions of this
Court with regard to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code could be discussed as follows:
a)
In T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467,
this Court while examining the aforesaid provision held that
the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and
not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious
and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned
therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion
of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the
first hearing by examining the party searchingly under
Order X of the Code.
b)
The object of the said provision was laid down by this
Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity
Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137. Similarly, in Popat
and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff
Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, this Court has culled out
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
255
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
the legal ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
c)
It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be
considered, but the whole plaint has to be read. As was
observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi vs. Nachhattar
Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487, only a part of the plaint
cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the
plaint as a whole must be rejected. Similarly, in Raptakos
Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC
184, it was observed that the averments in the plaint as
a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is applicable.
d)
It was further held with reference to Order VII Rule 11
of the Code in Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to
be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are
the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the
power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the
plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any
time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes
of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint
are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the
written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
e)
In R.K. Roja vs. U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC 275,
it was reiterated that the only restriction was that the
consideration of the application for rejection should not be
on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in
his written statement or on the basis of the allegations in
the application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to
consider only the plaint as a whole and in case the entire
plaint comes under the situations covered by Order VII
Rules 11(a) to (f) of the Code, the same has to be rejected.
f)
In Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal,
(2017) 5 SCC 345, this Court observed that the court can
only see whether the plaint, or rather the pleadings of the
plaintiff, constitute a cause of action. Pleadings in the sense
where, even after the stage of written statement, if there
is a replication filed, in a given situation the same also
256
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
can be looked into to see whether there is any admission
on the part of the plaintiff. In other words, under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code, the court has to take a decision
looking at the pleadings of the plaintiff only and not on
the rebuttal made by the defendant or any other materials
produced by the defendant.
g)
In an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code,
a plaint cannot be rejected in part. This principle is well
established and has been continuously followed since
the 1936 decision in Maqsud Ahmad vs. Mathra Datt &
Co. AIR 1936 Lah 1021. This principle is also explained
in another decision of this Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. vs.
Navilan Merchants Private Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780 which
was again followed in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis
Bank Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 158.
h)
In Sri Biswanath Banik vs.