Madras High Court
A.P.Seethai Achi (Died) vs Kr.Karthickkumar ... 1St on 29 October, 2024
C.R.P.(MD)No.1640 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
C.R.P.(MD)No.1640 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.8894 of 2021
1.A.P.Seethai Achi (Died)
2.S.Azhagammai Achi
3.S.P.Kamalam Achi
4.P.R.Manickam
5.M.Mangalam
6.P.P.Kalyani
7.P.R.Rajendiran
8.K.Seethai
9.P.R.Muthaiah
10.S.M.Yogammai Achi
11.K.M.Ramanathan
12.K.Ramanathan
13.R.Meenakshi ... Petitioners / Plaintiffs 3 to 15
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1640 of 2021
14.Chidambaram
15.Santha
16.Adaikkammai @ Malathi
17.Visalakshi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.KR.Karthickkumar ... 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.RM.Karuppaiah
3.P.Manonmani ... Respondents 2 & 3 /
Defendants 1 & 2
4.R.Krishnappan ... 4th Respondent /
16th Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.150/2021
pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai by
allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R-1 : Mr.Mohammed Atiff,
Assisted by Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan,
For S.Alagu Sundar
For R-2 to R-4 : No appearance
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1640 of 2021
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in
O.S.No.150 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Court at
Pudukkottai.
2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 3 to 15. Petitioners
14 to 17 in this revision petition are brought on record as the legal heirs
of the deceased first petitioner vide Court order dated 22.12.2022 made
in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.12546 to 12548 of 2022 in C.R.P.(MD)No.1640 of
2021.
3. Crux of the case of the revision petitioners:
The petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to
strike off the plaint in O.S.No.150 of 2021 on the file of the Principal
District Court, Pudukottai, filed by the first respondent. The prayer in
the said suit in O.S.No.150 of 2021 is to declare that the suit properties
belong to the plaintiff and the second defendant of the aforesaid suit
and for consequential permanent injunction in addition to declaration of
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.228 of 1995 dated
16.12.1998 as null and void. The petitioners herein previously had filed
a suit against the respondents 2 and 3 herein and 5 others in O.S.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
228 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Pudukottai
for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory
injunction with respect to the same suit scheduled properties as that of
the properties in O.S.No.150 of 2021. The said suit was decreed in
favour of the plaintiffs by judgment and decree dated 16.12.1998.
Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree, the second and the third
respondents herein filed an appeal and the same was allowed by
judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014. Challenging the same, the
petitioners herein filed second appeal in S.A.(MD)No. 391 of 2015 before
this Court and the same was allowed on 21.01.2020. However, no
further appeal was preferred as against the same as such the judgment
and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge's Court at
Pudukkottai in O.S.No.228 of 1995 had attained finality. Thereafter, the
second and third respondents with an ulterior motive had instigated the
first respondent herein who is the son of the second respondent herein
to file the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2021 with respect to the same
properties as against the petitioners and the fourth respondent herein
seeking the release discussed supra. The respondents 2 and 3 herein
have not filed any appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court as against the
judgment in S.A.(MD)No.391 of 2015 dated 21.01.2020. Hence, a suit is
not maintainable in the way which the present suit has been laid
wherein a judgment and decree of a previous suit is sought to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
declared as null and void and hence, the present Civil Revision Petition
came to be filed seeking to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.150 of 2021 on
the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.
4. Defence of the first respondent / plaintiff:
The suit properties comprised in old survey number 727-2B
situated in Lembalakkudi village originally belong to one Sivarama Iyer
and formed a part of a total area of 133 acres which were Inam lands.
The said Sivarama Iyer sold 118 acres to one Meenakshi Aachi who in
turn sold them to Egammai Aachi by registered sale deed in document
No.261/1960 dated 14.03.1960. After the enactment of Inam Abolition
Act, 1977, an assistant settlement officer was appointed and show
cause notices were issued to the occupiers of the lands including survey
No. 727-2B for an extent of 133 acres. The settlement Tasildar held that
the entirety of 133 acres vest with the Government and none of the
claimants / occupiers were entitled to patta. Challenging the same,
Egammai Aachi along with some other occupiers / purchasers filed an
appeal before the Inams Tribunal in I.T.C.M.A.No. 37 of 1974. In the
said appeal PR.P.Periyakaruppan Chettiyar and RM.KM.Ramanathan
Chettiyar were arrayed as respondents. The said I.T.C.M.A.No. 37 of
1974 was allowed on 25.07.1975 and appellants therein were directed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to issue patta. Following which, ryotwari patta was issued to the parties
concerned. The suit in O.S.No.228 of 1995 was filed suppressing the
Inam Abolition Proceedings. Thus, the petitioners herein have
misrepresented before the Court and committed fraud upon the Court
in appeal in A.S.No.47 of 2007, the first and the second defendants
herein have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and produced the order and decree in I.T.C.M.A
and on the basis of the same, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal
suit in A.S.No.47 of 2007. The second appeal in S.A.(MD)No.391 of 2015
was allowed on the basis of a technical issue that the legal heirs of some
of the parties were not brought on record in A.S.No.47 of 2007 and
hence the judgment and decree against dead persons would be non-est.
The grounds of re-litigation, abuse of process of Court and res judicata
raised by the petitioners herein are not sustainable.
5. Submissions:
The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Thirunavukkarasu
submitted that the suit properties in the present suit and the previous
suit are one and the same. Further the parties in the previous suit and
the present suit are also one and the same. The plaintiffs in the
previous suit got a decree for declaration. The unsuccessful first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant in the previous suit has set up his own son to file the present
suit which is a clear case of abuse of process of Court. The present suit
in O.S.No.150 of 2021 is barred by res judicata and the same is an
abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court under its powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entitled to strike off the plaint
in O.S.No.150 of 2021. The property measuring 118 cents out of the
total area of 133 acres in old survey number 727-2 B (A part of the
present suit schedule properties) was sold to one Egammai Aachi and
another part of the said land was sold to one Sheikh Dawood.
Subsequently, Inam Abolition Act, 1977, came into force and certain
lands of the said Egammai Aachi and Sheikh Dawood were taken over
by the Government. Challenging the same, the aforesaid persons filed
I.T.C.M.A.No. 37 and 38 of 1974 before the Subordinate Judge's Court
at Pudukottai. In I.T.C.M.A.No. 38 of 1974, it has been pleaded by the
respondents 2 and 3 therein that the grandfathers of the revision
petitioners herein were entitled for grant of patta for the scheduled
mentioned properties and the order made in I.T.C.M.A.No. 38 of 1974 is
not against the respondents 2 and 3 therein. This court and the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a catena of judgments have held that the parties who
have not come with clean hands, the plaint to be ordered to be struck
off and could be thrown out at the threshold itself. In the present case,
the subsequent case is not mere re-litigation but a gross abuse of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
process of law on a frivolous cause of action. Hence, the learned counsel
pressed that this court should invoke its power of superintendence
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and strike off the plaint
and pressed for allowing the revision petition.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff
Mr.Mohammed Athiff submitted that the plaintiff/ first respondent
herein is claiming title over the property on the basis of a settlement
deed executed by his father, the first defendant herein dated
10.07.2024. The first defendant herein has been issued with a patta for
the first item of the suit scheduled property after the I.T.C.M.A
proceedings. The second item of suit property was purchased by the
second defendant from her vendor one Egammai Achi, that is, the
appellant in the I.T.C.M.A proceedings. The case of the plaintiff in the
suit in O.S.No.150 of 2021 is to declare the decree in O.S.No.228 of
1995 as null and void on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation and
for declaration of title to suit properties. The plaintiff herein is not a
party to the earlier proceedings and the decree in O.S.No.228 of 1995
affects the title of the plaintiff and hence, he is well within his right to
seek for a declaration that the aforesaid decree in O.S.No.228 of 1995 is
null and void vis-a-vis him. The plaintiff herein acquired the title of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
first item of the suit property after the judgment in A.S.No.47 of 2007
and before the second appeal in S.A.(MD)No.391 of 2015 which was
filed on 01.06.2015. The second appeal was numbered on 31.07.2015,
admitted on 05.08.2015. On the date the plaintiff acquired title, that is,
10.07.2014, his predecessor in title had clear title vide judgment and
decree in A.S.No.47 of 2007 and hence, the title which had passed on
the plaintiff is absolute on the strength of the settlement deed executed
in his favor. The learned counsel contended that a second appeal is not
a continuation of suit proceedings and hence the transfer made vide
settlement deed dated 10.07.2014 is not hit by lis pendens. The plaintiff
herein as a person who had acquired title has no recourse, but to file a
suit to establish his title when it is threatened. From this perspective,
the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2021, more particularly the relief of
declaration that the decree in O.S.No.228 of 1995 is null and void vis-a-
vis the plaintiff herein is not an instance of relitigation or abuse of
process of law and most certainly it is not hit by res judicata. Relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. K. Modi versus K.
N. Modi reported in 1998(3) SCC 573, the learned counsel submitted
that the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has
to be invoked sparingly only when there is a clear apparent case of
abuse of process or relitigation which could be made out in the plaint
itself explicitly. Since the same could not be established in this case by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioners herein, he pressed for dismissal of the Civil Revision
Petition.
6. Heard, the rival contentions of the counsels who have appeared
for the respective parties and carefully perused the materials available
on record.
7. Analysis:
It is a settled proposition of law that under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the power of superintendence can be invoked by
every High Court in every case where:
(i) to prevent abuse of process of law
(ii) to prevent miscarriage of justice,
(iii) to prevent grave injustice,
(iv) to establish both administrative as well as judicial power of
High Court.
Though the term abuse of process of this Court has not been
defined under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the same has been
demonstrated in Ranipet Municipality' Rep. by its Comer. .. vs.
M.Shamseerkhan, reported in 1998(1)CTC 66 and the relevant
portion of the same is extracted as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. It is this conduct of the respondent that is attacked by the
petitioner as abuse of process of Court. What is 'abuse of the
process of the Court'? Of course, for the term 'abuse of the process of
the Court' the Code of Civil Procedure has not given any definition. A
party to a litigation is said to be guilty of abuse of process of the
Court, in any of the following cases:-
(1) Gaining an unfair advantage by the use of a rule of
procedure.
(2) Contempt of the authority of the Court by a party or stranger.
(3) Fraud or collusion in Court proceedings as between parties.
(4) Retention of a benefit wrongly received.
(5) Resorting to and encouraging multiplicity of proceedings.
(6) Circumventing of the law by indirect means.
(7) Presence of witness during examination of previous witness.
(8) Institution vexatious, obstructive or dilatory actions.
(9) Introduction of Scandalous or objectionable matter in
proceedings.
(10) Executing a decree manifestly at variance with its purpose
and intent.
(11) Institution of a suit by a puppet plaintiff.
(12) Institution of a suit in the name of the firm by one partner
against the majority opinion of other partners etc. (See The Code
of Civil Procedure- A.I.R. Commentary to Section 151, CPC...) The
above are only some of the instances, where a party may be said
to be guilty of committing abuse of the process of Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of (i)
Kesavan versus Pushpavathy and others. in C.R.P.No.2251 of 2021
dated 01.09. 2023,
(ii) M.Devaprakash versus P.P.Devaraj reported in 2022 (3) CTC
154 and
(iii) Arumugha Gounder and others versus Tmt.Palaniyamal and
two others reported in 2001(1) LW 167.
8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
the suit filed by the plaintiff / first respondent is an abuse of process of
Court and law and the same is vexatious and is a frivolous suit.
However, a plaint cannot be struck off unless from the very reading of
the plaint, the contents and the contentions made by the plaintiff
without relying upon the defense taken up by the respondents and if
the Court could come to a conclusion that there is no possibility for the
plaintiff to succeed only in that case filing of such a suit could be held
as an abuse of process of law and Court. Applying such criteria to the
instant case in hand, it is admitted by the plaintiff that the legal heirs of
PR.P.Periyakaruppan Chettiar and RM.KM. Ramanatha Chettiar have
filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the
defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.228 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge's Court at Pudukottai. It is admitted that the defendants 1 and 2,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
namely, R.M. Karuppiah and Manonmani were set ex-parte in O.S. No.
228 of 1995. The factum of having filed a first appeal by the said R.M.
Karuppiah and Manonmani before the learned Principal District Court
at Pudukkottai in A.S.No.47 of 2007 which was allowed on 07.03.2014
and which was further taken up on second appeal before this Court in
S.A.(MD)No.391 of 2015 in which this court by judgment dated
21.01.2020 had set aside the judgment and decree in A.S. No.47 of
2007 restoring the judgment and decree in O.S. No.228 of 1995 are all
admitted in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the plaint. Claiming that the second
appeal in S.A(MD)No.391 of 2015 dated 21.01.2020 came to be allowed
on technical grounds and not on merits, it is further admitted by the
plaintiff that the plaint schedule item No.1 has been settled in favor of
the plaintiff by registered settlement deed in document No.1984 of 2014
dated 10.07.2014 by the first defendant and that the second item of the
plain schedule property has been purchased by the second defendant,
namely, one Manonmani.
9. It is claimed that the cause of action for the suit arose on
20.04.2021 when the thirteenth defendant had attempted to fence the
plaint schedule properties and the same was prevented by the plaintiff.
Though it is claimed by the plaintiff that the second defendant did not
cooperate with the plaintiff to file the suit, the first relief which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sought for by the plaintiff is to declare the plaint schedule items 1 and 2
belong to the plaintiff and the second defendant respectively. Further
seeking a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants 3 to 16 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and
enjoyment of the first item of the plaint schedule property and the
second defendant's possession and enjoyment of the second item of the
plaint schedule property. Another relief to declare the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.228 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's
Court, Pudukottai dated 16.12.1998, is also sought for. No doubt, the
only remedy which is available for the second defendant and the others
who have lost the suit in O.S.No.228 of 1995 by the judgment and
decree in S.A.(MD)No.391 of 2005 dated 21.01.2020 is to prefer a
Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Having not done
so, it is needless to state that the second defendant had colluded with
the plaintiff indirectly to set up the plaintiff along with his father, that
is, the first defendant to file a suit afresh by filling up the old wine in a
new bottle by creating a frivolous cause of action. In the case of Tamil
Nadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society versus S.R. Ejaz
reported in 2009(5) LW 79, a similar matter has been dealt with and
the relevant portion is extracted:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“48. ... However, in cases wherein the suit itself was an abuse
of process of law and filed with the sole intention of defeating the
order passed by the Supreme Court and the trial Court having
apprised of such facts, failed to act at once, this Court is entitled to
exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to axe the suit in the initial stage itself.”
10. When the collusion in filing O.S.No.150 of 2021 between the
first defendant and the second defendant, the first defendant who had
set up his son as plaintiff to file the present suit to the advantage of the
first defendant and the second defendant can be explicitly understood
from the pleadings itself, I have no hesitation to hold that this is a clear
case of abuse of process of court. That apart, by filing this suit through
his son, the first defendant has resorted to and encouraged the plaintiff
in indulging in multiplicity of proceedings by circumventing law by
indirect means. Having not taken judgment in the second appeal in S.A.
(MD)No.391 of 2015 dated 21.01.2020 to appeal, now by introducing
scandalous objections in the pleadings, the plaintiff has manifestly filed
this vexatious suit to defeat the plaintiffs in O.S.No.228 of 1995 from
enjoying the fruits of the judgment and decree in their favor.
11. That apart, the plaintiff has disclosed in the pleadings that he
is aware of the entire proceedings from the very instance of the filing of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.No.228 of 1995. Hence, had he been diligent in his rights, on the
very instance of execution of the settlement deed with respect to plaint,
item 1 of the plaint schedule property as early as in the year 2014, he
ought to have filed a suit immediately on execution of the settlement
deed in his favor. Having not done so, the plaintiff seeking to declare the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.228 of 1995 dated 16.12.1998, on the
file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pudukottai, is clearly barred by
limitation. Precisely, the instant case is vexatious and the same is bad
for an illusory cause of action and is barred by limitation. By a clever
drafting, the plaintiff has tried to circumvent the provisions of
Limitation Act and has tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but
abuse of process of Court and law.
12. It is needless to state that under the circumstances
elaborated supra, the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
Constitution of India can certainly be invoked by this Court or else
grave injustice would be caused to the decree holders in O.S.No.228 of
1995. Taking into consideration that the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2021 is
an abuse of process of law filed with the sole intention of defeating the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.228 of 1995 dated 16.12.1998, which is
further confirmed in S.A.(MD)No.391 of 2015 by judgment and decree
dated 21.01.2020, the Trial Court having gone through the pleadings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ought to have acted at once by rejecting the plaint and having not done
so, this Court is entitled to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to axe the suit in O.S.No.150 of
2021 in the initial stage itself.
13. Accordingly, the plaint in O.S.No.150 of 2021 is hereby struck
off and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without cost and the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Sml
To
1.The Principal District Court,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.,
Sml
29.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
