The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected on the grounds of limitation, res judicata, and abuse of process of law based on the findings of previous suits.

R.S. Ramanathan, J.

The defendant in C.S.No.755 of 2012 is the applicant in this Application. The applicant/defendant filed the Application to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation, under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, and also on the ground of res judicata.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the relief of declaration to declare the release deed executed by N. Ethirajan, in favour of the applicant/defendant dated 30.12.1972 as ab initio, illegal, improper, invalid and null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for passing preliminary decree by dividing the suit properties into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff/respondent.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the averments made in the plaint, the suit property originally belonged to one V. Natesa Pillai and he was the Kartha of the undivided family of himself, his wife, and two sons, namely, N. Ethirajan and N. Ramachandran and four daughters. The said Natesa Pillai purchased the suit property from and out of the nucleus and also under a partition deed dated 2.4.1940, he entered into with his brothers and therefore, the suit property belonged to Natesa Pllai, his two sons, wife and four daughters and all of them constituted Hindu Undivided Family. The said Natesa Pillai died on 5.1.1959 and after his death for better administration of the property, his widow and four daughters executed a release deed on 23.11.1959 in favour of N. Ethirajan and N. Ramachandran - the defendant/applicant and from that date onwards, sons of Natesan Pillai, namely, N. Ethirajan and N. Ramachandran were absolutely in enjoyment of the property as co-owners. The plaintiff/respondent is the son of N. Ethirajan. The said Ethirajan died on 16.1.1998. He got married on 30.1.1971. When the respondent/plaintiff was in the womb of his mother, his father Ethirajan executed a release deed dated 30.12.1972 relinquishing his half share in the suit property in favour of the applicant/defendant and being a co-parcenar of the property, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to ¼ share in the said property as he was in the womb of his mother at the time of the execution of the release deed by his father Ethirajan on 30.12.1972 and therefore, the plaintiff/respondent and his mother filed O.S.No.5316 of 2001 on the file of Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the applicant/defendant for partition of their half share in the suit property. In that suit, preliminary decree was passed holding that the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to ¼ share and in appeal filed by the applicant/defendant in A.S.No.632 of 2003, this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and also held that the release deed dated 30.12.1972 marked as Ex.P.11 in O.S.No.5316 of 2001 is only a voidable instrument which can be set aside at the option of the aggrieved party and no steps were taken to set aside the document. The respondent/plaintiff alleged that the release deed dated 30.12.1972 executed by his father Ethirajan in favour of the applicant/defendant is vitiated by fraud and undue influence and therefore, the document is a nullity and ab intio, void and in Appeal Suit No.632 of 2003, this Court while allowing the appeal filed by the applicant/defendant held that the said document ought to have been set aside and therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and for preliminary decree as stated above. It is also stated in the plaint that the suit is not barred by res judicata as the issue of fraud and undue influence was not at all an issue in the earlier suit. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/defendant, therefore, submitted that having regard to the judgment of this court in A.S.No.632 of 2003 wherein this Court has specifically approved the finding of the trial Court that the release deed dated 30.12.1972 executed by Ethiraj