P.B. Balaji, J. Headnotes Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 10 — Appealability of order dismissing application for return of plaint:

*Roja v. Dr. Ramadas Ramkumar & Anr., decided on 04-09-2025 (Madras HC, P.B. Balaji, J.)*

CPC, 1908 — O. 7 R. 10 — Appealability: No appeal lies from dismissal of application under O.7 R.10 CPC; revision under Art. 227 maintainable. (para 9)

Family Courts Act, 1984 — Ss. 7 & 8 — Jurisdiction: Disputes between spouses relating to property, jointly or individually owned, triable exclusively by Family Court. (paras 10–12)

Family Courts Act, 1984 — S. 7(1)(c) — Scope: Reliefs of declaration of ownership and injunction between spouses fall within exclusive Family Court jurisdiction. (paras 11–12)

Family Courts Act, 1984 — S. 7 — Impleadment of authority: Addition of Inspector General of Registration as party does not oust Family Court jurisdiction. (para 13)

Result: CRP allowed; order of District Judge set aside; plaint directed to be returned to be filed before Family Court. (para 14)

Roja v. Dr. Ramadas Ramkumar & Anr.
2025 SCC OnLine Mad XXXX
(Civil Revision Petition (PD) No. 2677 of 2025 and CMP No. 15116 of 2025)
decided on 04-09-2025
Before: P.B. Balaji, J.

Headnotes

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 10 — Appealability of order dismissing application for return of plaint:
An appeal under Order 43 CPC lies only when the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is allowed. No appeal lies from an order rejecting/dismissing such an application. Hence, a revision under Art. 227 is maintainable. (para 9)

Family Courts Act, 1984 — Ss. 7 & 8 — Exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court — Disputes concerning property of parties to marriage:
Disputes relating to property owned by husband and wife, whether jointly or individually, fall squarely within the ambit of S. 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Such disputes are exclusively triable by the Family Court by virtue of S. 8. (paras 10–12)

Family Courts Act, 1984 — S. 7(1)(c) — Scope:
Where the reliefs sought in the suit are for declaration of absolute ownership of property in favour of husband and for consequential injunctions, such reliefs are disputes between spouses relating to property and thus triable only by the Family Court. (paras 11–12)

Family Courts Act, 1984 — S. 7 — Presence of statutory authority as defendant:
Mere impleadment of a statutory authority (Inspector General of Registration) in the suit does not divest the Family Court of jurisdiction where the primary dispute is between husband and wife relating to property. (para 13)

Practice and Procedure — Revision under Art. 227 — Maintainability:
Revision maintainable against dismissal of an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, as no statutory appeal lies. (para 14)

Facts

The petitioner-wife filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint in O.S. No. 26 of 2024 filed by the husband before the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, on the ground that the dispute pertained to property between spouses and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. The trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved, the wife filed the present revision.

Held

Allowing the revision petition, the Court held:

On maintainability of revision: Since Order 43 CPC provides appeal only when an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is allowed, and not when dismissed, revision under Art. 227 is maintainable. (para 9)

On jurisdiction: Disputes between husband and wife relating to property, whether owned jointly or individually, must be tried by the Family Court under S. 7(1)(c) read with S. 8 of the Family Courts Act. The reliefs sought in the plaint—declaration of ownership, mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction—squarely fall within the Family Court’s jurisdiction. (paras 10–12)

Impleadment of Inspector General of Registration: The mere addition of the Inspector General of Registration as a defendant does not oust the Family Court’s jurisdiction, since the primary lis is between spouses. (para 13)

Accordingly, the trial court’s order was set aside, and the plaint directed to be returned for presentation before the competent Family Court. (para 14)

Case Law referred

Meenakshi Sundaram v. Umar John, CRP (MD) No. 447 of 2023, decided on 22-02-2023 (Madras HC) (para 9)

C. Raja v. M. Sridevi @ Kalpana, CRP No. 926 of 2016, decided on 19-04-2025 (Madras HC, DB) (paras 10–11)

President, Trichy Co-op. House Construction Society Ltd. v. J. Santhi, CRP (MD) Nos. 1281–1285 of 2018, decided on 16-08-2023 (Madras HC) (para 11)

Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3535 (para 12)

Result

Civil Revision Petition allowed. Order of trial court set aside. Plaint directed to be returned for presentation before competent Family Court. No costs. CMP closed.