K. Valarmathi & Ors. Vs Kumaresan
History
Kathiresan bought a piece of agricultural land called Nanja Land in Kerala, which means land suitable for agriculture. He bought this piece of land using his own money.
Kathiresan believed in astrology. In the pursuit of this, he registered the land in the name of his nephew, named Kumaresan (Respondent). During the lifetime of Kathiresan, the land was under his full control and possession.
Now, after the death of Kathiresan, his wife and daughters (Appellants) claimed they still control and possess his land. This claim was contended by Kumaresan, arguing that he is the rightful owner as the land was registered in his name.
In the pursuance of this claim, Kumaresan also tried to sell this agricultural land. Due to this contention raised by the nephew, the wife and daughters of Kathiresan filed a civil suit against Kumaresan seeking:
- Declaration of the land, and
- An injunction to restrain Kumaresan from selling the land
Another suit was also filed by the appellants concerning other properties bought in the name of different family members.
Both civil suits are contested by the respondent under Article 227(1) of the Constitution before the Hon’ble High Court, requesting the rejection of these suits, as according to him, the same is barred under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
The Hon’ble High Court rejected the plaint filed by the wife and daughter of Kathiresan, concluding that the same was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Rejection of the plaint under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution by the High Court bypassed the trial court. So, as per the appeal raised by the appellants, the matter has now reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Appellants’ Arguments
It was contended by the wife and daughter of the deceased Kathiresan that the High Court had misused its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. Before delving into further arguments, let’s discover what Article 227 means. Under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court is conferred with supervisory power to regulate the functioning of lower courts and tribunals. It is pertinent to note that the power vested in the High Court is not appellate or original; it is supervisory.
The High Court has the power to intervene in the working of lower courts in three circumstances:
- When the lower court or tribunal is not acting within its jurisdiction.
- When the lower court or tribunal is not exercising its rightful jurisdiction.
- When the lower court or tribunal is involved in a gross injustice.
The main contention put forward by the Appellants was that there was a gross misuse of power by the High Court, as the procedure laid down in Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was bypassed. This provision vests the trial court with the statutory power to reject the plaint.
Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 empowers the trial court to reject the plaint if it violates any of the following grounds:
- No Cause of Action: If a plaint fails to show how a legal right was violated, the court may reject it under Rule 11(a).
- Claim Barred by Law: If a claim is against established law, it is to be rejected under Rule 11(d).
- Insufficient Court Fees: If the plaint is not supported with proper court fees, it can be rejected under Rule 11(b).
- Undervalued Suit: If the value of the suit is incorrectly stated, it may be rejected under Rule 11(c).
- Plaint Not in Duplicate: If a required duplicate copy is not submitted, the plaint can be rejected under Rule 11(e).
- Failure to Comply with Other Legal Requirements: If mandated documents or formats are not adhered to, rejection can occur under Rule 11(f).
Respondents’ Arguments
It was argued from the side of the Respondent that the civil suit filed by the Appellants is barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. This section states that “no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami shall lie by or on behalf of a person (the real owner) who is claiming to be the actual owner of such property”.
The word “Benami” means without a name or nameless. Benami property includes any movable or immovable property held or possessed by one person but financially owned by another.
Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the High Court should exercise its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to directly reject the plaint. The Respondent believed that the suit was inadmissible in a court of law and continuing with it would be a waste of judicial resources.
Supreme Court Judgment and Reasoning
The main question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was: “Whether the High Court has the statutory power to reject the plaint under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution?”
The Supreme Court, under the bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, delivered its judgment on April 29, 2025. The Court reiterated that under Article 227, the High Court is obligated to exercise supervisory powers concerning lower courts and tribunals. However, Article 227 should not be used to replace the functions of these courts.
Since the High Court rejected the plaint directly, it exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s order.
The Supreme Court reasoned that Order VII Rule 11 should be invoked only by the trial court to reject a plaint. If aggrieved, a party may file an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court’s bypassing of proper procedure violated Article 227 and the CPC, leading to the quashing of its order.
Recent Judicial Precedents
- Virudhnagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma vs. Tuticorin Educational Society (2019): Reiterated that Article 227 should not be used when a statutory remedy like an appeal is available.
- Frost (International) Ltd. vs. Milan Developers (2022): Clarified that only a trial court can reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. An appeal may be filed under Section 96 CPC.
- Jacky v. Tiny (2014): Held that Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be used to reject a plaint, as doing so falls outside the High Court’s jurisdiction.
Conclusion
In summary, courts need to follow the appropriate judicial procedures when addressing the dismissal of plaintiffs. The High Court, as stated in Article 227 of the Constitution, lacks original or appellate jurisdiction; its function is solely supervisory. As stated by the Supreme Court in various rulings, Article 227 is intended not to replace the authority of trial courts but to guarantee that they operate within legal limits.
The authority to dismiss a plaint is granted to the trial court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and it must be used strictly following the stipulated conditions. Evading this process disturbs the hierarchical framework of judicial operations and compromises procedural justice. A strict adherence to jurisdictional limits among various courts, according to their assigned authorities, is vital for maintaining the integrity and transparency of India’s legal system.
End Notes:
- India Const. art. 227.
- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, No. 45 of 1988, § 4(1) (India).
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11(a) (India).
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11(d) (India).
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11(b) (India).
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11(c) (India).
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11(e) (India).
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11(f) (India).
- Supra note 2
- Supra note 1
- K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985
- Supra note 3
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11(f) (India).
- Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538
- Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 633
- Jacky v. Tiny, (2014) 6 SCC 508
