The Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Salem.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Salem. The respondent filed said suit for declaration and possession and permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating or encumbering the property.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:

(i) The petitioners have come out with the present Civil Revision Petition to strike off the plaint.

(ii) The sister and wife of the respondent along with others filed O.S.No.881 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem, for partition and separate possession of the properties of Madhavan Chettiar alleging that the said Madhavan Chettiar died intestate on 11.06.1985 leaving behind the plaintiffs therein as his legal heirs. In the said suit, petitioners contended that after divorcing Kamalu @ Rajammal, the sister of the respondent, who was the first plaintiff in the said suit, the said Madhavan Chettiar married the first petitioner herein and petitioners 2 and 3 are their children and Madhavan Chettiar by the Will dated 01.06.1984 bequeathed the property to the first petitioner and died on 11.06.1985. The said suit was decreed on 18.07.2005. Challenging the same, petitioners filed first appeal and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.881 of 2004 was confirmed in the first appeal and first appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed on 21.12.2006. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed S.A.No.438 of 2007 in this Court. This Court by the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010, allowed the Second Appeal filed by the petitioners and dismissed the suit filed by the said Kamalu @ Rajammal and others. The judgment of this Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 05.08.2014 in S.L.P.(C).No.1350 of 2011 and review petition in R.P.(C)No.2481 of 2014 filed by the petitioners therein was also dismissed on 03.12.2014.

(iii) In the earlier suit O.S.No.881 of 2004, the petitioners have proved the Will in favour of the petitioners by examining attesting witness. This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the said Will is genuine.

(iv) The respondent herein, who is the brother of said Kamalu @ Rajammal/first plaintiff in O.S.No.881 of 2004 and husband of Banumathi/second plaintiff in O.S.No.881 of 2004, has come out with the present suit O.S.No.48 of 2015 in order to prevent the petitioners from enjoying the fruits of the judgment of this Court in the Second Appeal and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondent, his sister/first plaintiff in O.S.No.881 of 2004 and his wife Banumathi/second plaintiff in O.S.No.881 of 2004 have forged the Will dated 19.10.1984 alleged to have been executed by Madhavan Chettiar and at the instigation of Kamalu @ Rajammal and others, filed the present suit.

(v) According to the respondent, Madhavan Chettiar executed the said Will dated 19.10.1984 bequeathing the property to carry out the religious activities mentioned therein. Madhavan Chettiar died on 11.06.1985. Kamalu @ Rajammal and others filed suit in the year 2004. The respondent and others (plaintiffs therein) have not mentioned about the Will alleged to have been executed by Madhavan Chettiar in favour of the respondent. Only after judgment of this Court, order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. and filing of review petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, respondent has come out with the present suit based on the forged Will dated 19.10.1984. The suit filed by the respondent is abuse of process of Court. The plaint is liable to be struck off. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments:

(i) (1977) 4 SCC 467 (T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another);

“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the