Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran on Tuesday (February 10, 2026) set aside the Madras High Court and Trial Court orders that had rejected a civil suit at the threshold, and directed restoration of the plaint to the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, to be tried along with pending objections in execution. The Court observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC merely because it alleges coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation. The dispute arises from a family partition of substantial business interests and immovable properties, where the plaintiffs claim the division was inequitable and induced by coercion and misrepresentation, and also challenge a related conciliation award as fabricated.

The dispute arose between two branches of a family over the division of substantial business assets and immovable properties accumulated over the years. A partition deed dated 31.12.2018, termed Kaithadi Baga Pirivinai Pathiram (KBPP), was executed by members of both groups, dividing assets into two schedules. One group relied on a subsequent document dated 02.01.2019 described as a Conciliation Award, asserting that it conferred the status of an arbitral award capable of execution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The opposing group admitted signing the KBPP but alleged that it was executed under coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation, and that the Conciliation Award was fabricated and not the result of proceedings under Part III of the Act.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Nullify Ongoing Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court

Execution proceedings were initiated on the basis of the alleged award. The plaintiffs filed objections under Section 47 of the CPC and also instituted a civil suit challenging the validity of the KBPP and the award. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was affirmed by the High Court. The matter reached the Supreme Court challenging the rejection of the plaint.

The Court observed that “the remedy of the appellants to challenge the KBPP or the Award was not foreclosed by the judgment of the High Court.” It recorded that “what stood foreclosed is the initiation of arbitration, that too on the assumption that the documents of 31.12.2018 & 02.01.2019 together constitute a Conciliation Award.”

On the nature of the challenge, the Court stated that “the contention taken by the Jegatheesan group from the inception and in the present suit, against the KBPP and the Award are distinct and different.” It further noted that “the document dated 02.01.2019 is challenged as a fabricated document created as an afterthought to give the KBPP the status and effect of an Award.”

With respect to conciliation proceedings, the Court recorded that “we are also not able to find any documentary substantiation of the conciliation having been initiated and carried out under Part III of the Act of 1996.” It also stated that “the Settlement Agreement, which is essentially the KBPP has not been authenticated by the Conciliator as is mandated under sub-section (4) of Section 73.”

On rejection of the plaint, the Court observed: “We are unable to agree with the impugned orders of the Trial Court and the High Court that a ground of coercion could be urged only if the younger brother’s family was faced with a life threat.” It added that “the grounds of coercion, undue influence and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an inequitable partition, cannot be peremptorily rejected while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.”

Regarding the maintainability of the suit alongside execution objections, the Court stated: “Whether the KBPP is a valid document, sustainable as a partition deed or a family arrangement, cannot be examined by the execution Court and for that, the only possible mode is a suit properly instituted.”

Concluding on the rejection of the plaint, the Court recorded: “We hence find the order of the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court, resulting in the rejection of the plaint to be egregiously erroneous in law. We are of the opinion that there is a prima facie cause of action disclosed etc. in the suit and it cannot be termed vexatious or an abuse of the process of law. The cause of action as seen from the above discussion is a real one and not illusory or fictional. The factual averments, the legal grounds and the relief sought are not meaningless nor can it be said at this stage that the suit is bound to fail.”

The Court directed: “We set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the Trial Court, allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 and restore the plaint to the files of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, which rejected the plaint after the transfer by Annexure P-31. The suit shall be tried alongwith the objection raised under Section 47 of the CPC.”

Also Read: Arrest Prior To Supreme Court’s ‘Pankaj Bansal’ Judgment Not Illegal For Want Of Written Grounds; Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To NIA Terror Accused, Directs Expedited Trial

“We make it clear that it would be open for the parties to make the plea of relegating them to an Arbitration when they appear before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli before whom the suit and the execution proceedings are pending. The plea could only be of an arbitration and not a mediation, in which event, the respondents/judgment-debtors/defendants will, on affidavit, agree and undertake to withdraw all the contentions regarding the KBPP and the document dated 02.01.2019, so as to initiate an arbitration afresh dehors the two contentious documents, which shall be facilitated through any suitable Arbitrator, mutually agreed upon by the parties.”

“The appeals are allowed with the above reservation of an arbitration made possible and that of the findings herein not governing the final adjudication of the suit and the objections under Section 47; except the rejection of the plea of constructive res judicata which plea cannot be now raised by the respondents/defendants.”

Case Title: J. Muthurajan & Anr. v. S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 139
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.16254 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran