Madras High Court
Pushpa Bai vs N.Suganthi Ransal on 13 December, 2021
C.R.P.(MD) No.121 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P(MD)No.121 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) No.402 of 2017
1.Pushpa Bai
2.J.Selvakumar
3.J.Jebasingh
4.J.Robert Singh ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.N.Suganthi Ransal
2.N.Anna Sneha Pukazh
3.N.Thaya Poonkamazh ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to reject the plaint in O.S.No.167 of 2016 on the
file of Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Godwin
_________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.121 of 2017
For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
ORDER
The above application is filed invoking the superintending
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the
plaint in O.S.No.167 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif,
Padmanabhapuram.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:-
(i) The revision petitioner had originally filed a suit in O.S.No.761
of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram
against the third respondent herein and one Nesian, for partition and
separate possession of his share, in the suit property which was an extent
of 53 cents in R.S.No.644/1 and 48 cents in R.S.No.649/6 within
specified boundaries of Midalam village, Kanyakumari District.
(ii) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant had gifted
the suit properties to one Jebamony, the husband of the first plaintiff and
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.121 of 2017
the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 under deeds dated 30.01.1978 and
31.08.1979. The said Jebamony died on 20.01.1990 leaving behind him
surviving the plaintiff, who had inherited the property. Taking advantage
of the death of the said Jebamony, the defendants were attempting to
trespass into the suit property by cutting the trees and putting up the new
boundaries. The second defendant had executed the gift deed in favour of
the first defendant on 04.03.1995. The first defendant is the daughter of
the second defendant. This gift deed is void, since the gift deed also
includes the property which has been gifted by the first defendant to the
said Jebamony. Therefore, since it was an undivided interest that had
been gifted, the plaintiff came forward with the suit for partition.
(iii) The defence to the said suit was that even if the gift deed is
presumed to be a genuine one, since the death of the beneficiary was
prior to the limited estate holder, the gift would automatically failed. The
defendants further contended that the plaintiffs are not in joint possession
of the property and that they were not entitled to the partition as claimed.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.121 of 2017
(iv) Heard the counsel on either side and perused the records.
(v) The learned Principal District Munsif by judgment and decree
dated 26.08.1993 was pleased to pass a preliminary decree for partition.
This judgement and decree were taken up on appeal in A.S.No.32 of
1996 on the file of the Sub Court Padmanabhapuram which ended in a
dismissal and the same was once again taken up in appeal to this Court in
S.A.No.1409 of 2003. This appeal was also dismissed by judgment
dated 29.06.2016. Therefore, the said decree for partition had attained
finality and the right of the plaintiffs in the suit property stood confirmed.
After the dismissal of the second appeal on 29.06.2016, the first
defendant in the suit in O.S.No.761 of 1991 and the daughters of the
second defendant filed O.S.No.167 of 2016 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram to set aside / cancel the judgment
and preliminary decree passed by the Principal District Munsif,
Padmanabhapuram in O.S.No.761 of 1991 with reference to item Nos.1
and 2 of the suit schedule property. On receiving the summon, the
defendants who are the plaintiffs in the earlier suit had come forward
with this revision.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.121 of 2017
3.It is an admitted case that the earlier suit in O.S.No.761 of 1991
has been strongly contested by the third respondent herein and the father
of the respondents 1 and 2 herein. This suit has been once again filed
questioning the gift deeds in favour of the Jebamony, which was the
subject matter of the earlier suit. By making new allegation, the third
respondent who is the first defendant in the earlier suit along with the
daughters of the second defendant, are trying to once again reopen the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.761 of 1991 albeit in the form of a new
cause of action, which is nothing, but an illusory one.
4.A perusal of the earlier judgment would clearly show that the
present suit is nothing but a re-litigation and an abuse of process of
Court. This Court should put down such litigation firmly. In the above
circumstances, exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, the suit in O.S.No.167 of 2016 is struck off
on the file Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, taking note of
the fact that the third respondent herein who is the first defendant in the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.121 of 2017
earlier suit and the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 are the daughters of
the second defendant in the earlier suit, who had contested the earlier
proceeding right upto this Court and failed.
5.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the
cost of Rs.10,000/- and the petitioner shall pay the same to the credit of
Indian Association For the Blind, Sundarajanpatty, Alagal Koil Main
Road, Arumbanur Post, Madurai-625 104, on or before 23.12.2021.
6.Post the matter for reporting compliance on 23.12.2021
13.12.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
cp
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.121 of 2017
To:-
The Principal District Munsif,
Padmanabhapuram.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.121 of 2017
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
C.R.P(MD)No.121 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) No.402 of 2017
13.12.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
