Madras High Court
Sivagamaselvan vs Tamilselvi on 14 November, 2025
C.R.P.No.5639 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.5639 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.28211 of 2025
Sivagamaselvan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Tamilselvi
2.Rajendran
3.Manjula
4.Latha
5.Palanisamy
6.Velvizhi
7.Minor Kamalesh
S/o.Karthikeyan
Represented by his mother natural guardian,
Velvizhi,
W/o.Karthikeyan
Perunthurai Village,
Viruthachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:15 pm )
C.R.P.No.5639 of 2025
8.Minor Gopinath,
S/o.Karthikeyan
Represented by his mother natural guardian,
Velvizhi,
W/o.Karthikeyan,
Perunthurai Village,
Viruthachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.339 of 2024 on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, as being an abuse of the
process of law; consequently, dismiss the said suit with costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pradeep
for M/s.A.Rajaperumal
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the plaint
filed by the 1st respondent in O.S.No.339 of 2024 on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition of her 1/6th share
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:15 pm )
in respect of four items of properties. The 8th defendant in the suit filed the
revision petition seeking to strike off the plaint on the ground it is a
re-litigation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vendor
of the petitioner namely Dhiravidaselvi filed a suit for declaration of title
and for permanent injunction against the 1st plaintiff/plaintiffs' father
Chinnadurai in O.S.No.473 of 1990 on the file of Principal District Munsif
Court, Virudhachalam and the said suit was decreed. The appeal filed by
above said Chinnadurai in A.S.No.128 of 2007 on the file of Additional Sub
Court, Virudhachalam was partly allowed and the Trial Court judgment was
set aside in respect of Item No.5 in the said suit and in respect of Items 1 to
4 in the said suit, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was
confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the said Chinnadurai filed an appeal
before this Court in S.A.No.686 of 2010 and the same was dismissed.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the present
suit for partition filed by 1st respondent, who is claiming under Chinnadurai,
the plaintiff in the earlier suit is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court
or re-litigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:15 pm )
3. A comparison of the schedule of property found in present plaint
and the schedule of property found in the earlier suit would indicate that the
4th item in the present suit was described as 5th item in the earlier suit. The
fact remains the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the petitioner's
vendor Dhiravidaselvi was dismissed in respect of 5th item of suit property.
Therefore, the judgment and decree relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner will not bar the present suit filed by the 1st respondent in so far as
present 4th item is concerned. When there is no legal impediment for the
1st respondent to maintain a suit in so far as 4th item of suit property is
concerned, the prayer sought for by the petitioner to strike off the plaint
cannot be entertained.
4. It is settled law a plaint cannot be rejected in part or in respect of a
portion of the suit claim. When the earlier judgment and decree will not bar
the present suit in respect of 4th item of the suit property, this Court is not
inclined to exercise its power to strike off the plaint.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:15 pm )
However, it is open to the petitioner to raise the question of res judicata in
respect of Item Nos.1 to 3. Any such plea shall be considered by the Trial
Court on it's own merits without being influenced by anything said in this
order. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is
closed.
14.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
dm
To
The Principal Subordinate Court,
Virudhachalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:15 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:15 pm )
