Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 06-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – M/s. Varna Homes Private Limited, represented by Managing Director M. Chellappa; Respondents – M. Vijayalakshmi, M. Anantharaman, and M. Ravishankar (alias Muhammed Rafeeq).
  • Proceeding: Application No. 311 of 2026 filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking dismissal of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 128 of 2025 as an abuse of process and for lack of cause of action.
  • Plaint Details: The plaint alleges recovery of Rs 3,07,51,950 plus interest at 18% per annum, claiming arrears of rent/fair rent for the non‑residential ground‑floor and second‑floor portions at Old Door No. 39, New Door No. 8, Sarojini Street, T. Nagar, Chennai. The claim is based on three registered settlement deeds dated 19‑09‑2002, a lease agreement dated 01‑12‑2010 (Rs 10,000 per month), and a fair‑rent order dated 28‑04‑2018 fixing rent at Rs 2,25,357 per month.
  • Defendant’s Contentions: The applicant (defendant) contended that the 2010 lease was a sham created solely for GST registration, no rent was actually paid, the settlement deeds were fraudulent and are being challenged in O.S. Nos. 6686‑6688 of 2013, the third plaintiff’s conversion to Islam precludes his claim under Hindu succession law, and the second plaintiff sold his share on 20‑10‑2016, thereby lacking any continuing interest.
  • Respondents’ Counter‑Arguments: The respondents rely on the settlement deeds, the lease agreement, and the fair‑rent order. The third respondent acknowledges the name change and seeks amendment. They dispute the validity of the alleged sale by the second plaintiff, noting that O.S. No. 1294 of 2020 challenging that sale is pending.
  • Court’s Observations: The court found that the plaint discloses a cause of action, identifying the property, the plaintiffs’ title, the lease, the fair‑rent order, the death of the settlor, continued occupation, and the claimed arrears. Issues such as the genuineness of the lease, the settlement deeds, and the name change are factual disputes that must be resolved at trial and cannot be decided on summary judgment. The objection based on the third plaintiff’s religious conversion is legally incorrect; Section 26 does not bar the convert himself from inheriting. The alleged sale by the second plaintiff is a separate dispute and does not extinguish the claims of plaintiffs 1 and 3.

Final Outcome

  • The application (A No. 311 of 2026) seeking to reject the plaint is dismissed. The plaint in CS No. 128 of 2025 will proceed to trial, and no order of abuse of process is granted.

Topics: Civil Procedure, Property Rent Recovery