The Supreme Court on Monday (9 February 2026) reopened a long-running family property dispute, ruling that serious allegations of fraud and coercion cannot be shut out at the very threshold merely because a partition deed carries signatures. The court set aside orders of the trial court and the Madras High Court that had rejected the civil suit without a trial.
A Bench led by Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the dispute raised real and triable issues and deserved a full hearing before a civil court.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
The case arose from an internal split within a wealthy business family in Tamil Nadu. After the father’s business empire expanded across industries and properties, disputes emerged among the siblings over division of assets.
Two siblings resolved their differences through arbitration. The remaining two branches-represented by brothers Vaikundarajan and Jegatheesan-fell into a prolonged legal battle. A document titled Kaithadi Baga Pirivinai Pathiram (KBPP), dated December 31, 2018, recorded a division of assets into two schedules. All family members signed the document.
Soon after, another document dated January 2, 2019 surfaced, described as a “conciliation award” signed only by their half-brother Ganesan, who was said to have acted as a conciliator.
Jegatheesan’s group claimed the partition deed was never meant to be final and alleged that the so-called conciliation award was fabricated later to block their legal remedies.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
Journey Through Courts
The Vaikundarajan group treated the two documents together as a binding conciliation award and initiated execution proceedings. The Jegatheesan group objected, first seeking arbitration and later filing a civil suit alleging coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, and fraud.
Both the trial court and the Madras High Court rejected the suit at the outset under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, holding that no valid cause of action existed since the partition deed was admittedly signed.
That rejection brought the matter before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court took a close look at the sequence of events and the documents relied upon.
“The plaint cannot be brushed aside as illusory or vexatious merely because the execution of the document is admitted,” the Bench observed, noting that coercion and misrepresentation in family arrangements are often subtle and not accompanied by overt threats.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
The court found it significant that early correspondence between the brothers made no reference to a completed conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The alleged conciliation award appeared only later and was not signed by any of the parties.
“The document dated January 2, 2019 raises serious questions and is specifically challenged as a fabricated afterthought,” the court said.
It also clarified that an executing court cannot decide whether a partition deed itself is valid or vitiated by coercion-such questions can only be examined in a properly instituted civil suit.
Errors by Lower Courts
The Bench held that both the trial court and the High Court committed serious errors by treating the partition deed and the alleged conciliation award as inseparable at the preliminary stage.
“The rejection of the plaint was egregiously erroneous in law,” the court stated, adding that allegations of fraud, undue influence, and inequitable division required evidence and could not be rejected without trial.
The court also rejected the argument that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata or amounted to an abuse of process.
Read also:- PILs Against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma Over Alleged Hate Speech Reach SC, CJI Seeks Calm
Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court restored the civil suit and directed that it be tried along with objections pending in execution proceedings before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.
The Bench made it clear that its observations were only prima facie and would not influence the final outcome of the trial. The court also left open the possibility of arbitration if both sides agreed to abandon reliance on the disputed documents.
With this, the Supreme Court conclusively held that the family’s challenge to the partition deed and the alleged conciliation award remains open for adjudication by a civil court.
Case Title: J. Muthurajan & Anr. vs S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025
Decision Date: 10 February 2026
