1. Revision is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India against the filing of O.S.No.33 of 1998, on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2. Reason for filing the revision is, that as between parties, there was an earlier litigation which has been confirmed by this Court, and in spite of the same, defendant therein has ventured to file the present suit, which is an abuse of process. They pray that O.S.No.33 of 1998 may be struck off the file.

3. O.S.No.1017 of 1983, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Tirunelveli was filed by the present petitioners for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It was averred in that case that the property originally belonged to one Vakil Thiagaraja Pillai, and, for service rendered to him by the petitioners’ father late Velu alias Asirvatham, the property was given to him as a gift orally. The donee came into possession and patta was also granted to him recognising his possession. It was a minor inam estate and the Authorities under the Act also recognised his possession and ryotwari patta was also granted after enquiry. After the death of the done, his legal heirs, i.e., petitioners herein came into possession. Since they were residing far away from the property, their absence was exploited by defendants in that suit, and they trespassed into the property in 1983. The suit was, therefore, laid for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits.

4. In the written statement filed by respondent herein, who was second defendant in that suit, it was contended that the plaintiffs have no title. It was also admitted in that case that the property belonged to late Thiagaraja Pillai. Oral gift alleged to have been given by Thiagaraja Pillai in favour of petitioners’ father was disputed. According to them, Thiagaraja Pillai sold the property to one Chelliah and Vaikundaraman, who in turn sold the property to one Velu son of Ganapathi Mooppanar, who in turn sold the same to the respondent herein. It was the case of defendants therein that there was no trespass and plaintiffs were never in possession. It may also be stated that in the suit filed by petitioners, originally respondents husband alone was impleaded. But, subsequently, on the pleading of the husband, respondent herein was additionally impleaded as second defendant, and it was she who put forward the above contentions.

5. After a detailed trial, the trial court came to the conclusion that Thiagaraja Pillai had orally gifted the property to petitioners; father, and they came into possession. It was also found that recognising his possession, patta was also granted, and the right, if any, of any other person is also barred by adverse possession. The title was declared. It was further found by trial court that the respondent herein and her predecessors had no possession before 1983 and the case of trespass was also true. The suit was decreed as prayed for.

6. The matter was taken in appeal by respondent herein, in A.S.No.56 of 1991, on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli. All the findings of the trial court were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

7. The matter was taken to this Court in Second Appeal No. 1329 of 1992. I dismissed the Second Appeal. I held that the oral gift pleaded was true and possession also passed in favour of petitioners’ father and they were in possession till 1983. I also found that the title, if any, of the defendant or her predecessor is also barred by limitation and adverse possession, and the plaintiffs have perfected title to the property. While discussing the factum of possession, I also held that when patta was granted by the Inam Estate authorities, the same could have been granted only on the basis of possession, and that is also relevant piece of evidence.

8. After the dismissal of the Second Appeal, a review application was filed (Review C.M.P.SR.No. 10364 of 1997) with C.M.P. No.2182 of 1997 to condone delay of 25 days in filing the review. Even at the SR. st