K. Valarmathi vs Kumaresan

2025 INSC 606 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21466 of 2024)

K. Valarmathi & Ors. …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Kumaresan …..Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction

under Article 227 reject a plaint?

3. Short factual compass giving rise to the issue is as follows:

Appellants are the legal heirs i.e. wife and daughters of one

Kathiresan (since deceased). Kathiresan purchased the nanja

suit land from his own funds in the name of the respondent i.e.

his nephew. He had done so on astrological advice. During his

lifetime, Kathiresan was in possession of the suit land and

thereafter appellants claim to be in possession of the said land.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON Date: 2025.04.30 18:02:56 IST After the death of Kathiresan, disputes broke out between the Reason:

Page 1 of 6 appellants on one hand and sisters of Kathiresan on the other,

in respect of ownership of the suit land and other businesses.

The respondent, who is the son of one of the sisters of late

Kathiresan, initiated negotiations for sale of the suit land. This

prompted the appellants to file O.S. No. 1087 of 20181 seeking

a declaration regarding title and consequential injunction

against the respondent from encumbering the suit land. Other

lands purchased by Kathiresan from his own funds in the

name/joint name with other family members, were the subject

matter of another O.S. No. 201 of 20182 instituted by the

appellants.

4. Respondent took out petitions3 under Article 227 of the

Constitution before the High Court praying for rejection of plaint

in both the suits.

5. High Court by the impugned order, inter alia, rejected the plaint

in the present suit, holding the suit is barred by law i.e.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 19884. With

regard to the other suit the High Court was of the view the suit

was not barred under the Benami Act and declined the relief.

1 Hereinafter, ‘the present suit’.

2 Hereinafter, ‘the other suit’.

3 CRP (MD) 125 of 2019 in O.S. No. 201 of 2018 and CRP (MD) 210 of 2019 in O.S. No.

1087 of 2018.

4 In short, Benami Act.

Page 2 of 6

6. Appellants have challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to

reject the plaint in exercise of its supervisory powers under

Article 227 of the Constitution.

7. Heard Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant

and Mr. R. Baskaran, learned Senior Counsel for the

respondent. Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel also

assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Prabhakar contends

the High Court erred in law invoking the supervisory jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution to reject the plaint.

8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is

exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision

act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This

power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are

apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by

the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not

have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or

exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner.

9. Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it

cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court

which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a

Page 3 of 6 statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 19085.

For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of

the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 2276.

10. Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and Order VII Rule

11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which the trial

court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a deemed

decree which is appealable before the High Court under Section

96 of the Code. This statutory scheme cannot be upended by

invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article

227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of plaint.

11. In the present case, High Court has supervened the provisions

of the Code when it rejected the plaint on the ground it was

barred by law. In doing so, the High Court not only substituted

itself as the court of first instance but also rendered nugatory a

valuable right to appeal available to the appellant had the issue

been adjudicated by the trial court in the first place.

12. We are conscious appellate remedy against rejection of plaint is

not available if the High Court had in its revisional jurisdiction

5 In short, ‘the Code’ 6 Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society,

(2019) 9 SCC 538

Page 4 of 6 reversed the order of trial court and rejected the plaint. In Frost

(International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers7, this Court observed as

follows:-

“31. No doubt rejection of a plaint is a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2)CPC and an appeal lies from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from a decision of such court. However, it must be borne in mind that when a Revisional Court rejects a plaint, in substance, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 is being allowed. Under such circumstances, the remedy by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution could be availed and Respondent 1/the plaintiff has resorted to the said remedy in the instant case; although if the plaint had been rejected by the trial court i.e. court of original jurisdiction, it would have resulted in a right of appeal under Section 96 CPC.”

13. These observations in Frost (supra) are not relevant for the

matter in issue as the High Court in the present case had not

exercised its supervisory power to correct a jurisdictional error

of the trial court but usurped its original jurisdiction to reject

the plaint.

14. Procedural law provides the necessary legal infrastructure on

which edifice of rule of law is built. Short-circuiting of procedure

to reach hasty outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an

overburdened judiciary. Such impulses rendering procedural

safeguards and substantive rights otiose, subvert certainty and

consistency in law and need to be discouraged.

7 (2022) 8 SCC 633.

Page 5 of 6

15. Similar issue fell for decision in Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors.8

when a tenant (non-party to the suit) prayed for rejection of an

alleged collusive suit between the legal heirs of his erstwhile

landlord and the new purchaser under Article 226/227.

Deprecating invocation of constitutional powers in a landlord-

tenant dispute, the Court observed: -

“15. …If a suit is not maintainable it was well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in appropriate proceedings but in no case power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint.”

16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned

judgment dated 11.07.2024 passed by the High Court and allow

the appeal. We make it clear that we have not expressed any

opinion regarding merits of the plea of the respondent for

rejection of plaint and give liberty to seek necessary relief before

the trial court in accordance with law, if so advised.

….……..…..……...……………………….J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

….……..…..……...……………………….J. (JOYMALYA BAGCHI) New Delhi, April 29, 2025

8 (2014) 6 SCC 508

Page 6 of 6