A plaintiff may maintain a subsequent suit if it is based on a distinct cause of action; simply being aware of prior transactions does not preclude independent claims for relief.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. (PD) No. 4472 of 2013 whereby the Civil Revision Petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed and the order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the VIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) in O.S. No. 2320 of 2013 (hereinafter called the ‘second suit’ for the sake of convenience) was set aside. Consequently, the plaint in the second suit was rejected. The trial court, by the said order, had rejected I.A. No. 7712/2013 filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) and allowed I.A. No. 6381/2013 filed by the appellants herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.

1.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and position before the trial court in O.S. No. 2320 of 2013 (the second suit).

1.2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Late Shri M. Sokkalingam (“original owner”) and his wife S Valliammai-appellant No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff No. 1) entered into a partition of family properties by way of oral settlement dated 01.11.2011 with their children, i.e. two daughters namely Meena - appellant No. 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff No. 2) and Muthumeena - appellant No. 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff No. 3”) and son namely, S. Ramanathan - respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1). According to the oral settlement, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 received Rs. 9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores) each through cheques and executed deeds dated 02.11.2011, relinquishing their share in the properties in favour of their brother-defendant No. 1.

1.3 Thereafter on 04.11.2011, the original owner executed a registered Power of Attorney bearing Document No. 724 of 2011 in favour of Shri E.J. Ayyappan - respondent No. 2 herein (herein referred to as “defendant No. 2”), with respect to the following properties:

(i) Regent Place bearing R.S. No. 3907/2A, Survey No. C-263 (part) New Survey No. 43 situated in Ward E, Block No. 6, admeasuring 1 acre 56 cents, situated at 374, 375 and 376, Peyton Road, Opposite Ratan Tata Officer’s Home, Ootacamund, Nilgiris (“Ooty (Nilgiris) property”, for the sake of convenience) (Schedule ‘A’ Property).

(ii) Vacant land situated at Door No. 1/29, Rayavaram Main Road, (Kadiyapatti village), Ramachandrapuram, Panangudi, Vettam, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District, comprised in Old Survey No. 177 (Natham) New Survey No. 90/11 (“Pudukottai property” for the sake of convenience) (Schedule ‘B’ Property).

1.4 Pursuant thereto, settlement deeds dated 09.11.2011 and 10.11.2011 with respect to the aforesaid properties were executed in favour of defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 2, as the power of attorney of the original owner.

1.5 Subsequently, on 30.07.2012, plaintiff No. 1 and the original owner instituted O.S. No. 4722 of 2012 (‘first suit’) before the VIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against defendant No. 1 (in the second suit), seeking the relief of permanent injunction and peaceful possession and enjoyment of:

(i) property situated at Old Door No. 23, Harrington Avenue, subsequently at Door No. 48, fifth avenue and presently Door No. 2, fifth avenue, Harrington road, Chetpet, Chennai-600031 (“Chennai pr