Madras High Court
Suresh vs / on 17 July, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
A.S.No.467 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 08.07.2025 Pronounced on : 17.07.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Appeal Suit No.467 of 2022
Suresh .. Appellant/Plaintiff
/versus/
Kannagi .. Respondent/2nd defendant
Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to set
aside the order and decreetal order dated 15.02.2022 made in I.A.No.107 of
2019 in O.S.No.34 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District Court,
Kallakurichi.
For Appellant :Mr.R.Nandha Kumar
For Respondent :Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
-----
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is directed against the order of the Court below dated
15.02.2022, passed in I.A. No. 107 of 2019 in O.S. No. 34 of 2019, on the
file of the III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi, rejecting the plaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
2. Plaint averments:
The suit for partition was filed by one Suresh, against Athiyappa
Gounder and seven others, on the premise that the suit property was
originally held by Kurumba Gounder Jahirdhar. On the advent of the Jahir
Abolition Act, the State Government acquired the property by way of
Government Order dated 05.01.1966. Subsequently, compensation was paid
to Kurumba Gounder vide proceedings dated 25.06.1981.
3. Thereafter, under the Inam Settlement Scheme and after due
enquiry, patta was issued in favour of Sengoda Gounder, the great grandfather
of the plaintiff and Athiyappa Gounder, the first defendant. Joint Patta No.
146, dated 15.11.1977, was issued in the names of Sengoda Gounder and
Athiyappa Gounder and the property was enjoyed by their respective
branches without disturbance.
4. After the death of Sengoda Gounder on 22.11.1990, the plaintiff
seeks partition by claiming that Sengoda Gounder is entitled to ½ share in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
property covered under Patta No.146 and the remaining ½ share to Athiyappa
Gounder. The suit was filed against Athiyappa Gounder, the co-pattadar and
others, whom all the plaintiff presumed to have a claim over the property. The
plaintiff restricts his claim to 1/12 share, stating that Sengoda Gounder had
four children, one of whom was Selvaraj, who predeceased Sengoda
Gounder. Selvaraj had a son by name Rathinam. The plaintiff is the son of
Rathinam.
5. The plaintiff states that the first defendant, despite having only ½
share, sold the entire suit property to one Narayanan through a sale deed
dated 22.01.1992. Narayanan, in turn, sold the property to the second
defendant on 30.04.2001. The plaintiff further contends that the first
defendant is claiming ownership over the entire suit property based on a sale
deed of the year 1975. However, at that time, the property had already been
taken over by the Government being a Jahir land and on the abolition of the
Jahir, the suit land was declared as State property. The settlement proceedings
had attained finality on 25.08.1976. Therefore, any sale deed allegedly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
executed and registered in 1975 is to be treated as non est in law.
6. Written Statement averment:
The second defendant, in his written statement, denied the plaintiff’s
claims as being contrary to facts and law. He specifically denied that a joint
patta was issued in favour of Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa Gounder and
also denied the date and manner of Sengoda Gounder’s death and succession.
7. The second defendant further denied the allegations of
suppression of Government proceedings and false claims in O.S. No. 84 of
1996, filed by Narayanan against the third defendant and others. He asserted
that the suit property originally belonged to Thangavel Gounder, Kuppammal
and Vellaiyan. Athiyappa Gounder had purchased the property through sale
deeds dated 30.06.1975 and 17.10.1975, registered as Document Nos. 2194,
2200, and 3084.
8. Since the purchase, Athiyappa Gounder had been in exclusive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
possession and enjoyment of the property. A patta was issued in his name.
Later, Athiyappa Gounder executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of
Sengoda Gounder, who was his father-in-law. However, since Sengoda
Gounder acted against the interest of the principal, the Power of Attorney was
revoked on 06.10.1986. Therefore, according to the second defendant, the
great-grandfather of the plaintiff never had title over the property, except the
limited authority conferred under the power of attorney for a short period.
9. Application to reject the plaint:
In the application to reject the plaint, the defendant placed on record
that with respect to the suit property, earlier a suit in O.S.No.17 of 1987 was
filed by Sengoda Gounder against Athiyappa Gounder for declaration and
permanent injunction. A decree in favour of Athiyappa Gounder was passed
on 13.09.1990 by the Sub Court, Vriddhachalam. Aggrieved by the said
decree, Sengoda Gounder preferred an appeal in A.S.No.174 of 1991 before
the District Court, Cuddalore, which was dismissed by order dated
01.10.1992.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
10. In the said proceedings, Sengoda Gounder admitted that he was
the power agent of Athiyappa Gounder and instituted O.S.No.12 of 1977 on
behalf Sengoda Gounder against third parties. By this conduct, the right of
Athiyappa Gounder only over the property was established, as Sengoda
Gounder represented Athiyappa Gounder only as his agent in respect of the
suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff, who claims to be the great-grandson of
Sengoda Gounder, is estopped from filing a fresh suit for declaration of title
in respect of the same property.
11. Since the dispute regarding title over the property has attained
finality after the decree passed in O.S. No. 17 of 1987, which was confirmed
in A.S. No. 174 of 1991, there cannot be another suit for the very same cause
of action. The pleas relating to handover of the property to the Government
after Jahir abolition Act and the alleged joint patta issued in favour of
Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa Gounder are newly invented facts, which
were never pleaded by Sengoda Gounder, who is the predecessor-in-title of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
the plaintiff.
12. Court Finding:
In light of the earlier proceedings and the decree passed in respect of
the suit property. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking
rejection of the plaint on the ground of res judicata, duly considered by the
trial Court and allowed. Consequently, the plaint was rejected by order dated
15.02.2022. Being aggrieved, the present appeal.
13. Appeal Grounds and Response:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that,
even if there was a earlier decree of declaration of title in respect of the suit
property that it would not preclude the appellant from filing a present suit for
partition, especially when he traced the right through the joint patta issued by
the Government after Jahir Abolition Act, the document not been considered
in the earlier proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
14. He further submitted that the suit property was assigned by the
Government jointly to Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa Gounder under the
Inam Settlement Scheme and the assignment dated 15.11.1975 was never
challenged by the first defendant, Athiyappa Gounder. Therefore, Athiyappa
Gounder cannot claim exclusive rights over the entire extent of the property.
His right in the suit property is limited to ½ share and he cannot alienate the
share of Sengoda Gounder based on the sale deed dated 17.10.1975, which is
non-est in law in view of the subsequent joint patta assignment in favour of
Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa Gounder, vide proceedings dated
15.11.1975.
15. It is also submitted that Narayanan, the vendor of the first
respondent, had filed O.S. No. 84 of 1996 against Selvaraj (grand father of
the appellant) and his brothers, seeking declaration, recovery of possession,
and mesne profits. The said suit was dismissed on 12.12.1996. Aggrieved by
the dismissal, Narayanan filed an appeal in A.S. No. 10 of 1997, which was
allowed on 23.07.1997. A further appeal filed in S.A. No. 1276 of 1997, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
a Cross Objection No. 72 of 1999 dismissed and the judgment of the first
appellate court was confirmed.
16. It was only when the first respondent, who purchased the
property from Narayanan, filed the execution petition for delivery of
possession, the plaintiff came to know about the decree passed in O.S. No. 84
of 1996. It is hence contended that the decree obtained by Narayanan is
through false claims, contrary to the Inam Settlement assignment. Therefore,
the decree is liable to be declared null and void and consequently, the plaintiff
to be allotted 1/3 share in the suit property.
17. It is further contended the plaint, which contains entire facts and
grounds for seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 84
of 1996 is null and void, cannot be rejected summarily without being
subjected to trial. Even the plea of res-judicata can be decided only after trial
being a disputed fact.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
18. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the sale deeds in favour of Athiyappa Gounder, dated
30.06.1975 and 17.10.1975, were already tested in the first round of litigation
between Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa Gounder in O.S. No. 17 of 1987.
Since the plaintiff claims through Sengoda Gounder, who is his great-
grandfather, he cannot claim a better title than what his predecessor
possessed.
19. Heard the learned counsels. Records perused.
20. Point for determination:
Whether the plaintiff/appellant re-agitating a settled issue?
21. The suit filed by Sengoda Gounder for declaration, in O.S. No.
17 of 1987, was dismissed on 13.09.1990. The first appeal was also
dismissed on 01.10.1992 and the second appeal, in S.A. No. 1432 of 1993,
was dismissed on 22.11.1993, thereby the matter has attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
Regarding title over the suit property, the decree in O.S.No.17 of 1987 is
against Sengoda Gounder.
22. Narayanan, who purchased the suit property from Athiyappa
Gounder on 22.01.1992, filed O.S. No. 62 of 1993, which was subsequently
renumbered as O.S. No. 84 of 1996. The grandfather of the plaintiff,
Mr.Selvaraj was one of the defendants in the said suit. This suit also pertained
to the same property and relief sought was declaration of title and possession.
23. In the said suit, Narayanan contended that he had purchased the
property from Athiyappa Gounder, however, the branch of Sengoda Gounder
preventing him from taking possession. In the written statement filed by
Selvaraj, the plaintiff’s grandfather, it was only contended that the suit
property was un-surveyed Jahir land. No plea stating that joint patta was
issued to his father Sengoda Gounder under the Inam Settlement Scheme in
1977.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
24. If such a patta had indeed been issued, there was no reason for
Selvaraj to suppress it while defending against the claim of Narayanan for
declaration and possession.
25. The second round of litigation, which commenced in O.S. No. 62
of 1993 instituted by Narayanan, reached its finality after the dismissal of the
Second Appeal in S.A. No. 1276 of 1997 on 05.02.2007, which was later
confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2312 of 2011,
dated 23.08.2017. Thus, the decree declaring title and possession in favour of
Narayanan stands confirmed.
26. The grandfather of the plaintiff and other descendants of
Sengoda Gounder, who had contested the suit and lost, cannot convey any
right in the suit property to their legal heirs. The plaintiff's attempt to interfere
with possession and enjoyment of the suit property by making frivolous
claims of title has been rejected by judicial pronouncements again in the
revision petition filed in the execution proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
27. When the plaintiff’s predecessors sought a declaration of title
specifically on the plea that the suit property fell under the Jahir Abolition Act
and their claim was dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the Trial
Court’s order and directed delivery of possession in favour of the respondent.
The O.S.No.34 of 2019, filed by the great grandson of Sengoda Gounder, in
the third round of litigation in respect of the same suit property, rightly
rejected by the trial Court.
28. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced a
novel argument that the right of the appellant cannot be curtailed by rejection
of the plaint. When a new fact has now come to the appellant’s knowledge
regarding the nature of the property and assignment in favour of his great
grandfather, Sengoda Gounder.
29. This Court given to anxious consideration to the submissions.
The spirit of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is intended to prevent perpetual
litigation and re-agitating settled dispute on frivolous ground on the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
cause of action. The present suit squarely fall under the classification of re-
litigating issue which has reached finality. Hence, barred by law of res
judicata.
30. This is a third-generation litigation in respect of the same subject
matter. The first round of litigation between Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa
Gounder arose in O.S. No. 17 of 1987, and reached finality on the dismissal
of S.A. No. 1432 of 1993 on 22.11.1993. Notably, at that time, Sengoda
Gounder did not claim any right as a joint pattadar with Athiyappa Gounder.
In fact, he had acted as power of attorney holder of Athiyappa Gounder, to
the extent of filing a suit on behalf of Athiyappa Gounder. Having admitted
the title of Athiyappa Gounder and having not claimed any right under the
alleged Inam Settlement Scheme, he had forfeited any right in the suit
property.
31. Furthermore, in the second round of litigation, the plaintiff’s
grandfather, Selvaraj, was one of the defendants in O.S.No.62 of 1993, filed
by Narayanan for declaration of title and possession. In that case, Selvaraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
made an entirely different claim, stating that the suit property was unsurveyed
Jahir land. In his written statement, he did not plead that the property was
assigned to his father Sengoda Gounder under a joint patta with Athiyappa
Gounder. He again suffered a decree of declaration of title and possession at
the hands of Narayanan, who had purchased the property from Athiyappa
Gounder.
32. Subsequently, in E.P. No. 121 of 2017, filed for delivery of
possession based on the decree in O.S.No.84 of 1996, the same plea that the
property was covered under the Jahir Abolition Act was raised by the
petitioner (plaintiff herein). This contention was considered and rejected by
both the Execution Court and the High Court in C.R.P. No. 6 of 2025, and the
findings were rendered against the plaintiff/petitioner.
33. A new suit, with a new set of facts that were never canvassed by
the appellant’s grandfather and great grandfather, namely Selvaraj and
Sengoda Gounder, is now being projected in an attempt to create a fresh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
cause of action for the present suit.
34. A dispute that has been heard and finally decided cannot be re-
agitated in a different form or through a different person. The principle of
finality of litigation and the bar under res judicata squarely apply to the facts
of the case under consideration.
35. The learned counsel for the appellant, rely on Srihari
Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and others, the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Court has summarised the guiding
principles under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC in the following terms:
“25.On a perusal of the above authorities,
the guiding principles for deciding an application
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as
follows:
25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that
the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in
the plaint will have to be referred to.
25.2.The defence made by the defendant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
the suit must not be considered while deciding the
merits of the application.
25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred
by res judicata, it is necessay that (i) the “previous
suit” is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent
suit were directly and substantially in issue in the
former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the
same parties or parties through whom they claim,
litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these
issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a
court competent to try the subsequent suit.
25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res
judicata requires consideration of the pleadings,
issues and decision in the “previous suit”, such a
plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule
11(d), where only the statements in the plaint will
have to be perused.”
It is also worth referring Keshav Sood Vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood and
others reported in (2023) 6 MLJ 392 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as below:-
“5.As far as scope of Rule of Order VII of
CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
Court can look into only the averments made in
the plaint and at the highest, documents produced
along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant
and documents relied upon by him cannot be
looked into while deciding such application.
6.Hence, in our view, the issue of res
judicata could not have been decided on an
application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC.
The reason is that the adjudication on the issue
involves consideration of the pleadings in the
earlier suit, the judgment of the trial Court and the
judgment of the appellate Courts. Therefore, we
make it clear that neither the learned single Judge
nor the Division Bench at this stage could have
decided the plea of res judicata raised by the
appellant on merits.”
36. In the present case, the issue of title was already the subject
matter of O.S. No. 17 of 1987, in which Sengoda Gounder himself was the
plaintiff. He lost the suit up to the High Court. Thereafter, there can be no
further adjudication on title by any party claiming under Sengoda Gounder.
To add, in the second round of litigation, initiated by Narayanan, when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
family members of Sengoda Gounder interfered with his possession and
rights, they were again unable to establish title. Even in the execution
proceedings arising out of the decree passed in O.S.No.84 of 1996, the third
attempt made by the appellants to establish title failed. In these
circumstances, the present round of litigation is clearly an attempt to re-
litigate a settled issue which constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
37. This Court cannot close his eyes to previous judicial proceedings
that have reached finality, while considering an application for rejection of the
plaint on the ground of res-judicata. If an unscrupulous litigant suppresses
earlier proceedings and attempts to re-agitate a settled issue, the Court is
bound to look beyond the pleadings, in order to ascertain whether there has
been suppression of material facts and whether the subsequent suit amounts
to misuse of judicial process. Court cannot confine itself to the plaint
pleadings, especially when the pleadings lack honest disclosure of material
and necessary facts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
38. In light of the above, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed and the
order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is confirmed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
17.07.2025
Index:yes
Internet:yes/no
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
rpl
To
1.The III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
Pre-delivery judgment made in
17.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:03:49 pm )
