Madras High Court
Madhuudhan vs Vijaianandh on 5 January, 2023
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
and C.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
Madhuudhan
Rep. by Power Agent D.Manjulatha ... Petitioner
[Power Agent amended vide order dated 07.09.2015 made in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in
CRP SR No.70659 of 2015]
Vs.
1.Vijaianandh
Rep. by his Power Agent A.Subrmanian
2.A.Subramanian ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the suit in O.S.No.393 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif of
Poonamallee seeking to struck off the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.R.Krishnasamy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Valliappan
: for R1 and R2
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article
227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the suit pending in O.S.No.393 of
2015, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the suit
property measuring an extent of 2400 Sq. Ft. Originally this property belonged to
the grandfather of the petitioner by virtue of a registered Sale Deed that was
executed in the year 1992. He died intestate and hence, it devolved upon the
petitioner and his mother. The mother settled her share of the property in favour of
the petitioner by a registered Settlement Deed dated 08.05.2015 and thereby, the
petitioner is claiming to be the absolute owner of the property.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that during the life time of his
grandfather, a suit came to be filed by one Santhakumari in O.S.No.148 of 2010
against the grandfather and others claiming for the relief of title and for permanent
injunction with respect to larger extent of lands including the suit property. This
suit was contested and during the pendency of the suit, initially an order of interim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
injunction was passed and subsequently, it was vacated and ultimately, the suit
itself came to be dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2013.
4.In spite of the dismissal of the above suit, once again the said
Santhakumari through the respondents attempted to create a cloud over the title
and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property and hence, a
police complaint was given. Apart from this complaint, various other persons
whose properties were also attempted to be dealt with, also gave a police complaint
and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.234 of 2014 and Crime No.21 of
2015. The 2nd respondent Mr.A.Subramaniyan was also arrested in the course of
investigation. The said Subramaniyan filed a bail petition before this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.9005 of 2015. During the pendency of the bail petition, an affidavit of
undertaking was filed by the said Subramaniyan to the effect that he will not
interfere with the portion of the suit property. Based on the undertaking given by
the said Subramaniyan, the Criminal Original Petition was allowed and he was
enlarged on bail by an order dated 17.04.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
5.The grievance of the petitioner is that after giving such an undertaking
before this Court to the effect that there will be no interference to the suit property,
the said Subramaniyan acted as an agent to the 1st respondent and filed the present
suit in O.S.No.393 of 2015 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction.
According to the petitioner, the suit itself is a clear abuse of process of law and it
goes against the undertaking that was given before this Court and hence, the
present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the suit.
6.Heard Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier ground of
litigation pertaining to the suit property and larger extent of lands came to an end
by virtue of the dismissal of the suit through Judgment and Decree dated
25.11.2013 made in O.S.No.1148 of 2016. Thereafter, once again attempt was
made to create a cloud over the title to the property and to interfere with the
possession and enjoyment of the property and the same resulted in lodging police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
complaint. During the pendency of the investigation, the 2nd respondent was also
arrested and he gave an undertaking before this Court that he will not interfere
with the possession and enjoyment of the property. After giving such an
undertaking, the suit was filed thereafter, and the same amounts to abuse of
process of law, which requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
pending criminal case has nothing to do with the present litigation, since the issue
involved in the suit pertains to the civil rights of the parties. The learned counsel
contended that the pending criminal case and the order passed in the bail petition
cannot be put against the respondents and they cannot be prevented from
prosecuting their valuable civil rights. It was further submitted that if at all the
petitioner has a valid right and title over the suit property, the same should be
established only in the pending suit and there is absolutely no ground to stall the
proceedings pending before the Court below in O.S.No.393 of 2015.
9.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
and also the materials available on record.
10.It is clear from the records that on an earlier occasion, an attempt was
made by one Santhakumari to claim right and title over a larger extent of property
which also included the suit property. In the said suit, the grandfather of the
petitioner contested the suit as the 4th defendant. This suit came to be dismissed for
default through Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2013. Thereafter, no steps were
taken to restore the suit and the Judgment and Decree became final.
11.The 1st respondent is claiming right over the suit property by virtue of a
Sale Deed dated 29.03.2012 executed by the above said Santhakumari. The 1st
respondent is represented through his Power of Attorney Agent viz., the 2 nd
respondent. The father of the petitioner and others gave a police complaint against
the 2nd respondent on the ground that he is attempting to create forged documents
over the properties and based on the complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime
Nos.234 of 2014 and 21 of 2015. The 2nd respondent was also arrested in the
course of investigation. The 2nd respondent filed Crl.O.P.Nos.9005 and 9067 of
2015 before this Court seeking for enlarging him on bail. Insofar as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
Crl.O.P.No.9067 of 2015 is concerned, the same pertains to the complaint
registered in Crime No.21 of 2015 in which the defacto complainant was the father
of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent gave an undertaking before this Court by filing
an affidavit to the effect that he will not interfere with the portion of the property
belonging to the defacto complainant. It was based on this affidavit of undertaking,
bail was granted by this Court by an order dated 17.04.2015. After having given
such an undertaking, the 2nd respondent once again institutes a suit in his capacity
as a Power Agent of the 1st respondent seeking for the relief of permanent
injunction in O.S.No.393 of 2015. He also manages to get an order of interim
injunction during the pendency of the suit. On carefully going through the plaint, it
can be seen that the respondents have conveniently concealed above the earlier
undertaking that was given before this Court.
12.It is clear from the above facts that the present suit that has been
instituted by the respondents is a clear abuse of process of Court and the same
goes against the very undertaking that was given before this Court by the 2 nd
respondent. That apart, the earlier attempt that was made by the vendor viz.,
Santhakumari came to an end on dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.148 of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
Hence, the present suit is nothing, but a re-litigation and an abuse of process of law
and the same requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13.In the result, the suit in O.S.No.393 of 2015, pending on the file of the
learned District Munsif, Poonamalee is hereby struck off and the Civil Revision
Petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
05.01.2023
Internet : Yes ./ No
Index : Yes ./ No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes ./ No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
To
The District Munsif,
Poonamallee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
C.R.P.No.3786 of 2015
and C.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
05.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
