The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling, has held that a trial court cannot delve into the merits of the maintainability of a claim against certain defendants at the stage of registration of a suit. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, allowing a Civil Revision Petition, set aside a trial court’s order that had refused to register a money recovery suit, and directed the plaint to be numbered and processed in accordance with the law.
The court clarified that questions regarding the liability of parties, including the applicability of statutory provisions like Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are matters that must be adjudicated during the trial after the framing of issues, not at the preliminary stage of registration.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suit for recovery of money filed by the petitioner, Maganti Manjula, before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Gudiwada. The suit was based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the first defendant, Pallapothu Narayana Rao. The petitioner had also impleaded the two minor daughters of Mr. Rao as defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
The plaint contended that Mr. Rao had borrowed the money as the ‘kartha’ of the joint family consisting of himself and his daughters, and therefore, the daughters were also liable for the debt.
However, the trial court, by an order dated May 13, 2025, returned the plaint and refused to register the suit. The lower court questioned the liability of the minor daughters, citing the amended Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It opined that following the 2005 amendment, a creditor could no longer proceed against a son, grandson, or great-grandson (which includes daughters) for the recovery of a debt from their father solely on the ground of pious obligation.
Aggrieved by this refusal, the plaintiff filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Arguments Before the High Court
Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the trial court had erred in law by adjudicating the issue of maintainability at the registration stage. He submitted that whether the suit was maintainable against the minor daughters and whether Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act applied were matters that “fall within the domain of trial.” He contended that the court had no jurisdiction to refuse registration on these grounds.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, after considering the submissions, agreed with the petitioner’s counsel. The High Court observed that the core issue of whether the liability of the daughters was being claimed on the basis of pious obligation was a question that required determination only after the suit was registered and evidence was led during trial.
The Court stated, “Whether any pious obligation would arise during the lifetime of defendant No.1, would also be a relevant point. So, the question of applicability of Section 6(4) of the Act requires consideration during trial.”
In a crucial observation, the judgment clarified the scope of the statutory bar. “Further, Section 6(4) of the Act does not impose a bar on the institution of the suit,” Justice Tilhari noted. “On fulfillment of the conditions under Section 6(4) of the Act, the Court shall not recognize any such right… and so, at best the suit would be dismissed against defendant Nos.2 & 3. But, that does not mean that the suit is not to be registered and not tried.”
The High Court affirmed that the suit was “certainly maintainable” against the first defendant, who had executed the promissory note. It also pointed out that the trial court possesses the power under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to delete any party if it finds them to be improperly joined.
Concluding that the trial court had overstepped its jurisdiction, the High Court held: “In the considered view of this Court, the learned Trial Court, has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by entering into the merits of the maintainability of the claim against defendant Nos.2 and 3, at the stage of registration of the suit and in refusing registration.”
Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the trial court’s order of May 13, 2025, was set aside. The High Court directed the trial court to register the suit and proceed with it in accordance with the law. It was made clear, however, that the observations in the order were solely for the purpose of deciding the issue of registration and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the claim or the defence of the parties.
