The civil revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have filed this civil revision petition praying to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.828 of 2007 pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur.

2.The revision petitioners in the civil revision petition have averred that the suit O.S.No.828 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur is an abuse of process of Court and hit by the principles of law and re-litigation and principles of res judicata and therefore, is liable to be struck off and that the lands in Paimash No.170 and 173 (New Survey No.179/1) in Adambakkam village and other properties originally belongs to the joint family of Veerbathra Chettiar and that in the partition suit C.S.No.564 of 1926 on the file of this Court, a final decree has been passed and that the aforesaid property and other properties have been allotted to the share of Veerabathra Chettiar and Appa Kannu Chettiar and that the title of the present petitioners, predecessors in interest has been confirmed by this Court and that the suit for partition mentioned supra has been filed between Veerabathra Chettiar and brothers and in another partition suit between the legal representatives of Appa Kannu Chettiar O.S.No.669 of 62 on the file of District Munsif at Poonamallee one Desappa Chettiar, father of the first revision petitioner and Sankaran Chettiar have been added as defendants and that the said Sankaran Chettiar has taken delivery of the property in E.P.No.9 of 67 on 06.01.1967 and that the western portion of the aforesaid property has been allotted to the share of Sankaran Chettiar who has taken delivery also and eastern portion of the property will go to the other sharer viz., Desappa Chettiar and that the revision petitioners late father Desappa Chettiar has omitted to seek patta under Minor Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963 and that the lands have been declared as Poramboke wrongly on 10. 1988 by the Assistant Settlement Officer and as such the revision petitioners along with his brothers have filed C.M.A.No.40 of 1991 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu to set aside the order and that the first respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the impugned suit has filed I.A.No.172 of 1993 to get herself impleaded on the basis of agreement dated 20.12.1990 by the Kundrakudi Aadheenam and that the Sub Court has allowed the C.M.A.No.40 of 1991 and dismissed the impleading I.A.No.172 of 1993 mentioned that Kundrakudi Aadheenam has no right on 15.02.1965 and hence, the first respondent/plaintiff has no right over the suit properties.

3.The stand of the revision petitioner is that to get over the impediment, the first respondent/plaintiff has obtained a collusive decree against the Kundrakudi Aadheenam and obtained a registered sale deed in her favour and on the basis of sale deed from the individual who has no right and that the impugned suit has been filed and obtained an order of ad-interim injunction and further it is to be noted that the Special Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed against I.A.No.172 of 1993 and that the present petitioners has filed W.P.No.4881 of 1996 against the encroachers, which has been dismissed and later W.A.No.580 of 1996 has been filed and this Court has held in the writ appeal that encroachers need not be heard in the settlement proceedings and as against the W.A.No.580 of 1996 order S.L.P.No.18512 of 1997 has been filed and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, the title and possession of the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have been confirmed right from Munsif Court to Honble Supreme Court and in fact, the possession lies with the revision petitioners and not with the first respondent/ plaintiff who claims title which has been passed under E.P.No.8 of 2004 in O.S.No.140 of 2001 under a collusive decree after dropping the revision petitioners viz., the contesting parties etc. and therefore, it will be a waste of precious judicial time in relitigating and reap