"Vexatious Claim To Grab Property": Madras High Court Rejects Plaint Filed Against Boney Kapoor, Jhanvi Kapoor In Sridevi Property Case
The Court held that the suit seeking partition and declaration against sale deeds executed in favour of the late actor Sridevi and her family was barred by limitation and constituted a vexatious attempt to reopen decades-old transactions despite the absence of a sustainable cause of action.
The Madras High Court has rejected a plaint filed seeking partition and declaration against sale deeds executed in favour of late actor Sridevi and her family members, holding that the suit was barred by limitation and constituted a vexatious attempt to grab the property by abusing the process of law.
The Court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition filed by Boney Kapoor, Jhanvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor challenging an order of the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, which had dismissed their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in a suit filed by the respondents claiming partition and declaration over property situated at Sholinganallur Village, Chennai District.
A Bench of Justice T.V. Thamilselvi, while allowing the revision petition, observed: “… In the earlier occasion, the plaintiffs also prayed for the relief of partition in a different property, but now they came forward with the present suit only with regard to the purchase made by Sreedevi and her family members in the year 1988, not against other purchasers, … only to grab the property, with vexatious claim, by abusing process of law they came forward with the present suit for the relief of partition, which is not permissible under law and on the face of record, it came to light that they came forward with the suit claiming right over the suit property, which is barred by limitation and the alleged cause of action is not sustainable one, … on those grounds, the plaint is liable to be rejected, and the findings of the trial judge are liable to be set aside”.
Advocate P. Subba Reddy appeared for the petitioners. Advocate M. Balasubramanian appeared for the respondents.
Background
The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of Rajeshwari, Sree Latha and late actor Sridevi in respect of the suit property were null and void. They also sought a declaration against subsequent release deeds and prayed for partition, claiming a 1/5th share in the property.
According to the plaintiffs, late M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar had originally purchased extensive properties in Sholinganallur village through a registered sale deed and had retained an extent of 2.70 acres in Survey No.1/1 after executing a release deed in favour of his sons.
The plaintiffs alleged that, though portions of the property had earlier been sold in favour of Industrial Gas and General Supplies in 1981, subsequent sale deeds were executed in 1988 in favour of Sridevi, her mother and sister, despite the vendors allegedly lacking title over the property.
The plaintiffs further contended that the purchasers were not bona fide purchasers and had subsequently managed to obtain a patta in the year 2023 by giving incorrect survey particulars. They claimed that they became aware of the alleged fraud only in 2023 and thereafter instituted the suit seeking a declaration and partition.
The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, contending that the plaintiffs were not class-I legal heirs of M.C. Chandrasekaran, that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation, and that the cause of action pleaded in the plaint was illusory and vexatious.
The trial court dismissed the application, holding that only plaint averments could be examined at the stage of considering rejection of the plaint and that questions relating to the truthfulness of allegations could be adjudicated only during trial.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the plaint averments and rival submissions in light of settled principles governing rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The Court noted that the plaintiffs had claimed themselves to be legal heirs of the late M.C. Chandrasekaran while simultaneously suppressing material facts regarding the existence of Chandrasekaran’s first wife, Bhanumathi.
The Bench observed that although the plaintiffs had contended before revenue authorities that Chandrasekaran had subsequently married the third plaintiff after a customary divorce, no such disclosure had been made in the plaint.
The Court further noted that the legal heir certificate obtained by the plaintiffs had already been cancelled and that the plaintiffs’ claim that they were class-I legal heirs of Chandrasekaran was itself legally unsustainable.
The Bench additionally observed that the sale deeds under challenge were executed in 1988 and had never been challenged by Chandrasekaran during his lifetime till his death in 1995.
The Court held that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the sale transactions after nearly four decades. The Bench observed: “But nearly about 40 years later, the plaintiffs came forward with the suit to declare those sale deeds as null and void, as such is clearly barred by limitation.”
The Court further found it unbelievable that the plaintiffs came to know about the transactions only in 2023, despite the sale deeds having existed since 1988 and the defendants’ title having been reflected in revenue records.
The Bench also held that the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiffs was not supported by proper pleadings or prima facie documentary material showing possession or enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs or their predecessors.
Relying upon the Supreme Court decisions in R. Nagaraj v. Rajamani, Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi and The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar, the Court reiterated that limitations must be strictly enforced and that courts should reject plaints that are manifestly vexatious or legally barred.
The Court also took note of earlier proceedings instituted by the plaintiffs in 2007 seeking partition in respect of other family properties, wherein their claims had not been accepted.
The Bench observed that despite the earlier proceedings, the plaintiffs had now selectively targeted only the property purchased by Sridevi and her family members in 1988.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the present suit was barred by limitation, lacked a sustainable cause of action and constituted a vexatious attempt to reopen decades-old transactions.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu and allowed the Civil Revision Petition. The plaint filed by the plaintiffs was consequently ordered to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Cause Title: Boney Kapoor & Ors. v. M.C. Sivakami & Ors.