Madras High Court
Radhakrishnan vs Dhanavel on 22 February, 2021
S.A.No.163 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No. 163 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
Radhakrishnan,
S/o,Sundaramurthy,
Maruvai Village,
Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Dhanavel,
S/o, Saminatha Padayachi,
Keezhakuppam Village,
Hamlet of Vallam,
Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
2. Kasi Padayachi,
S/o, Saminatha Padayachi,
Keezhakuppam Village,
Hamlet of Vallam,
Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.163 of 2009
3. Pakkiri Padayachi,
S/o,Thangavel Padayachi,
Keezhakuppam Village,
Hamlet of Vallam,
Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
4. Duraisami,
S/o, Ramachandran,
Ulmaruvai Village,
Arangamangalam Post,
Cuddalore District.
5. Rajaraman,
S/o, Ramalingam, ... Respondents
Ulmaruvai Village,
Arangamangalam Post,
Cuddalore District.
6. Muruganandam,
S/o, Jayaraman,
Ulmaruvai Village,
Arangamangalam Post,
Cuddalore District.
Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated
31.10.2008 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2008 dismissing the appeal, confirming
the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif of Cuddalore in
O.S.No.515 of 2003 dated 29.02.2008.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.163 of 2009
For Appellant : Mr.R.Gururaj
For Respondent : Ms.R.Meenal
*****
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree
dated 31.10.2008 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated
29.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.515 of 2003 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.
2. From the pleas putforth by the respective parties and submissions
putforth by the counsel appearing for both the parties, it is found that the
suit has been laid by the plaintiff, the appellant in this second appeal, for the
reliefs of declaration, possession and mense profits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.163 of 2009
3. The plaintiff would plead that the suit property originally belonged
to Ranganatha Pillai and he had executed a settlement deed dated
24.08.1935 in favour of of Vairam Ammal and in the abovesaid settlement
deed, Vairam Ammal had been given only a life estate and the vested
remainder would go to her children and Vairam Ammal had sold the suit
property to one Thillaigovinda Pillai on 19.02.1955 under the Ex.B1 sale
deed, however, no sanction had been obtained by Vairam Ammal from the
Court for alienating the minors' property and when the sons of Vairam
Ammal had attained the majority, sold the suit property to the plaintiff's
father Sundaramurthy by way of a sale deed dated 07.05.1980 and the
plaintiff's father and his vendor had jointly filed the suit against
Thillaigovinda pillai and others in O.S.No.805 of 1991 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, for the relief of declaration and recovery of
possession and the suit was decreed on 24.01.1994 and against the same, the
defendants 2, 6 and 9 preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.22 of 1994 on the
file of the District Court, Cuddalore and later transferred to the Subordinate
Court, Cuddalore and renumbered as A.S.No.21 of 1994. The first appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.163 of 2009
court has allowed the appeal by the judgment dated 31.01.1995 and
consequently dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff.
4. According to the plaintiff, without hearing the plaintiff, the first
appeal in A.S.No.21 of 1994 had been disposed of and the plaintiff
endeavored to rehear the appeal and the same having been rejected by the
court concerned, the High Court as well as the Supreme Court and therefore
according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the present suit
and contended that the judgment and decree obtained in A.S.No.21 of 1994
is not a valid one and therefore the abovesaid judgment and decree rendered
in A.S.No.21 of 1994 would not operate as resjudicata and accordingly
prayed for the reliefs claimed in the present suit.
5. The defendants would mainly contend that in view of the disposal
of A.S.No.21 of 1994 against the plaintiff and consequently the suit laid by
the plaintiff's father and his vendor in O.S.No.805 of 1991 having been
dismissed, the present suit laid by the plaintiff is barred by resjudicata.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.163 of 2009
6. The Courts below on an appreciation of the materials placed on
record, proceeded to hold that the suit laid by the plaintiff is barred by
resjudicata. From the materials available on record, it is found that the suit
laid by the plaintiff and the suit laid by the plaintiff's father and his vendor
in O.S.No.805 of 1991 relate to the same property. Though the abovesaid
suit in O.S.No.805 of 1991 had been decreed, however on appeal, the
judgment of the trial court had been setaside. The endeavor made by the
plaintiff to rehear the appeal had been rejected not only by the court
concerned and also by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court. It is
thus found that when the subject of matter of the present suit as well as the
suit in O.S.No.805 of 1991 is one and the same and no valid challenge had
been preferred by the plaintiff's father and his vendor against the judgment
an decree passed in A.S.No.21 of 1994 and the plaintiff is claiming title
only through his father to the suit property and on that basis, filed the
present suit, as held by the Courts below, the suit laid by the plaintiff is
barred by the principles of resjudicata. Applying the principles of
resjudicata to the case at hand, it is found that the Courts below had rightly
held that the present suit laid by the plaintiff is barred by resjudicata and I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.163 of 2009
do not find any valid reason to interfere with the same. In such view of the
matter, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is involved
in this second appeal.
7.In conclusion, the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 passed in
A.S.No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,
Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2008 passed in
O.S.No.515 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Cuddalore are confirmed. Resultantly, second appeal is dismissed with
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
22.02.2021
mfa
Index:yes
Internet:yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.163 of 2009
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
mfa
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Principal Subordinate Court,
Cuddalore.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Principal District Munsif Court,
Cuddalore.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
S.A.No. 163 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
