Madras High Court
Gurusamy vs Saroja on 22 March, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
CR.P.(MD)Nos.1017 & 2303 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5079 & 10615 of 2016
C.R.P.(MD)No.1017 of 2016
1.Gurusamy
2.Mangathayammal ...Petitioners/Defendants
Vs.
1.Saroja
2.Jeyaseelan
3.Saravanan
4.Rajeswari ...Respondents/Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition striking off the plaint in O.S.No.
50 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti.
For Petitioners :Mr.R.G.Sankar Ganesh
For Respondents :Mr.S.Natesh Raja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
C.R.P.(MD)No.2303 of 2016
1.Gurusamy
2.Mangathayammal
3.G.Deivam
4.G.Seenivasan ...Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1,2,5 & 6
Vs.
1.Saroja
2.Jeyaseelan
3.Saravanan
4.Rajeswari ...R-1 to R-4/Plaintiffs
5.Vairamani
6.Indira ...R-5 & R-6/D-3 & D-4
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition striking off the plaint in O.S.No.
99 of 2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
Court-I, Usilampatti.
For Petitioners :Mr.R.G.Sankar Ganesh
For R-1 to R-4 :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
COMMON ORDER
C.R.P.(MD)No.1017 of 2016 has been filed to strike off the plaint in
O.S.No.50 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
C.R.P.(MD)No.1017 of 2016 has been filed to strike off the plaint in
O.S.No.99 of 2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial
Magistrate Court-I, Usilampatti.
2.The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before the Court
below.
3.The revision petitioners have filed a petition in C.R.P(MD)No.1017
of 2016 to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.50 of 2016 on two grounds;
(i)suppression of facts and (ii)the suit is hit by res-judicata.
4.He given up the prayer of res-judicata.
5.Suppression of Facts
: The suit in O.S.No.3 of 1993 was filed by the
plaintiffs for permanent injunction and in the said suit, both the parties were
compromised and compromise decree was also passed. After that the father
of the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.280 of 2004 for declaration and
injunction and the same was dismissed on 15.11.2007. So, compromise
decree has become invalid as waived. Now, the plaint in O.S.No.50 of 2016
was filed for the following reliefs:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(a).granting permanent injunction
restraining the defendants their men and agents
from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs'
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property.
(b).declaring that the alleged sale deed
executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd
defendant on 5.1.1998 under document number
3/98 is null and void before the court of law.
(c). declaring that the alleged sale deed
executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the
fourth defendant on 19.1.1998 under document
number 24/98 is null and void before the court of
law.
(d).declaring that the alleged sale deed
executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 4th
defendant on 19.1.1998 under document number
24/98 is null and void
(e).granting permanent injunction
restraining the 5th and 6th defendants from in any
way encumbering the suit property to third parties
(f).directing the defendants to pay the Costs
of this action to the plaintiffs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.All the reliefs based only on the compromise decree. Originally, the
plaintiffs have not stated anything about in O.S.No.280 of 2004. Now, they
amended the plaint details of the suit.
7.C.R.P.(MD)No.2303 of 2016 has been filed by the defendants to
strike off the plaint in O.S.No.99 of 2016. The said suit was filed by the
plaintiffs for the following reliefs.
(a).granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men
and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property,
(b)declaring that the alleged sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in
favour of the 3rd defendant on 5.1.1998 under document number 3/98 is null
and void before the court of law,
(c)declaring that the alleged sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in
favour of the 4th defendant on 19.1.1998 under document number 24/98 is
null and void before the court of law,
(d)declaring that the alleged sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in
favour of the 4th defendant on 19.1.1998 under document number 24/98 is
null and void before the court of law,
(e)granting permanent injunction restraining the 5th and 6th defendants
from in any way encumbering the suit property to third parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The relief sought for in the suits in O.S.Nos.50 & 99 of 2016 are
same only. In the appeal the title and possession of the plaintiffs is to be
decided. But, for the same relief they have filed two suits. So, both the
plaints are strike off. Since compromise decree was hit by the Judgment and
Decree in O.S.No.3 of 1993 the plaintiffs are directed to seek their remedy in
appeal suit in A.S.No.222 of 2008, which was filed against the Judgment and
decree in O.S.No.280 of 2004.
9.With the above observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are
allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 22.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
ksa
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
To
1. The District Munsif Court,
Usilampatti.
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court-I,
Usilampatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa
Common Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1017 &
2303 of 2016
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
