The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot be allowed to relitigate a matter that has already been settled, and frivolous and vexatious proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike out the plaint in O.S.No.281 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The first defendant in the said suit has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The short facts which requires for the disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition are set out here under:-

One Nachimuthu Chettiar was the owner of the joint family properties in S.F.No.514 at Sulur Village. He had a son and five daughters. One of the daughters, filed a suit in O.S.No.201 of 1982 against her father, brother Tirumalaisamy and other daughters. A preliminary decree was passed on 22/3/1982.

4. The first respondent herein who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.281 of 2010 which is sought to be struck of in this revision, has filed an application in I.A.No.399 of 1996 along with her purchasers to implead them as parties to the suit in O.S.No.201 of 1982. Her claim was that she is the wife of late Tirumalaisamy. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 13/6/1997 by the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore District. A revision has been filed against the said order in CRP (NPD) No.2146 of 1999 and the same was also dismissed on 31/7/2003. A Special Leave Petition filed against the order made in Civil Revision Petition has also seen the same fate. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 2/12/2003. Thereafter, final decree was made in O.S.No.201 of 1982 on 23/12/2004.

5. Thereafter, the first respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.281 of 2010 before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, for declaration that she is the wife of late Tirumalaisami; for partition and separate possession of the suit property; directing the defendants thereon to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- or in alternative, past maintenance and future maintenance and charge on the property for the due payment of maintenance. The said suit is sought to be struck off by the first defendant in the said suit.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that

(i). When already it has been decided in I.A.No.399 of 1996 that the first respondent/plaintiff has not established that she is the wife of late Tirumalaisami and the same was confirmed in the revision before this Court and also by the Apex Court, the first respondent herein cannot file a suit to declare herself as the wife of the said Tirumalaisami and for other consequential relief.

(ii). When the first respondent has already sold the property to the third parties, who have also filed an application to implead themselves as parties, cannot maintain the suit for partition and separate possession once again.

(iii). When already preliminary decree was passed in respect of the suit properties on 22/3/1982 and a final decree on 23/12/2004, the first respondent cannot once again relitigate the matter.

(iv). The suit filed by the first respondent is a clear abuse of process of law and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that

(i). The application in I.A.No.399 of 1996 filed by the first respondent along with her purchasers was dismissed on the ground that the first respondent has not established by some acceptable documents that she is the widow of Tirumalaisami and the same was confirmed by the High Court of Madras as well as the Honourable Apex Court. The said finding rendered in an application cannot operate as res judicata in the present suit.

(ii). The first respondent now armed with certain documents to establish that she is the widow of Tirumalaisami and hence the said suit has been filed by her.

(iii). The suit filed by the first respondent cannot be thrown out at the inception. It requires a detailed trial.

(iv). The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which cannot be agitated by filing a revision to strike off the plaint.

8. On t