The Supreme Court has restored a civil suit challenging a family partition deed and a purported conciliation award, holding that allegations of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation cannot be brushed aside at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran while setting aside concurrent orders of the trial court and the Madras High Court, ruled that the plaint disclosed a real and triable cause of action and was wrongly rejected as an abuse of process.
The litigation arises from a bitter dispute between two branches of a business family over the division of vast ancestral and business assets. While two siblings had earlier resolved their disputes through arbitration, differences persisted between the remaining branches, represented by brothers Vaikundarajan and Jegatheesan.
On December 31, 2018, a document titled Kaithadi Baga Pirivinai Pathiram (KBPP) was executed, allegedly recording a partition of family assets into two schedules. Shortly thereafter, a document dated January 2, 2019, described as a Conciliation Award, surfaced, purportedly prepared by the parties’ half-brother acting as a conciliator.
The Jegatheesan group admitted signing the KBPP but claimed it was only a tentative draft, executed under undue influence and without informed consent. They further alleged that the so-called conciliation award was a fabricated document, created later to give the partition deed the colour of a binding award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
After failed attempts to initiate arbitration and to halt execution proceedings launched by the Vaikundarajan group, the Jegatheesan group filed a civil suit seeking to invalidate both the partition deed and the alleged conciliation award. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a decision later affirmed by the Madras High Court, which held that the suit was barred by law, amounted to abuse of process, and was hit by constructive res judicata.
The Court emphasized that the partition deed and the alleged conciliation award were challenged on distinct legal grounds—the former on allegations of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation, and the latter on allegations of fraud and fabrication. These issues, the Court said, necessarily require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold stage.
Rejecting the lower courts’ approach, the Bench observed that coercion in family arrangements need not involve physical threats and may arise from dominance, pressure, or unequal power dynamics within a family—matters that can only be assessed at trial.
On the conciliation award, the Court noted the absence of any material showing compliance with Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It found that the document dated January 2, 2019, was not signed by the parties and raised serious doubts about its authenticity, especially in light of admitted facts that several family members had signed the KBPP on different dates or were abroad during the relevant period.
No Bar of Res Judicata or Abuse of Process
The Supreme Court categorically held that the plaintiffs’ remedies had not been foreclosed by earlier proceedings. While arbitration had been ruled out earlier, liberty had been expressly reserved to pursue remedies in accordance with law. Consequently, the plea of constructive res judicata could not be sustained.
The Court also rejected the argument that simultaneous proceedings—objections under Section 47 CPC in execution proceedings and a civil suit—amounted to abuse of process. It clarified that while the executing court could examine whether the alleged award was executable, it could not adjudicate upon the validity of the partition deed itself, for which a properly instituted civil suit was the only remedy.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the Madras High Court rejecting the plaint; restored the civil suit to the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.
The court directed that the suit be tried along with objections filed under Section 47 CPC; and clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not influence the final adjudication on merits.
The Court recorded that a proposal for mediation had failed. However, it left open the possibility of fresh arbitration, provided the parties agreed to withdraw all contentions based on the disputed partition deed and conciliation award.
Case Details
Case Title: J. Muthurajan & Anr. Versus S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.16254 of 2025
Date: 10/02/2026
Read More: Customs Can’t Reduce Declared Import Value to Levy ADD: CESTAT Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty Demand
