(Prayer in CRP.No.2529 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.104 of 2018, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet.

in CRP.No.2530 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.286 of 2013, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet.)

1. While the prayer in the Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No.2530 of 2018 is to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.286 of 2013, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet, the prayer in CRP.No.2529 of 2018 is to strike off the plaint in O.S.104 of 2018, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are predominantly one and the same, both the revisions are disposed through a common order. Since the out come of the decision in CRP.No.2529 of 2018 would depend on the decision taken in CRP.No.2530 of 2018, I shall first address the issues involved in CRP.No.2530 of 2018.

2. The parties are addressed as per their status in the suit.

3. Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions and Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned counsel for the first respondent in both the revisions as well as Mr.S.Raghu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 in CRP.No.2529 of 2018.

CRP.No.2530 of 2018:-

4. The Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No.2530 of 2018 seeks to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.286 of 2013, on the ground of re-litigation and abuse of the process of law.

5. The brief facts in this revision are as follows:

(a) The plaintiff namely, S.Chandrababu had originally filed the suit in O.S.No.87 of 1995 seeking for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 namely, Mohanambal, Pownammal and Pushpammal in connection with the property in Sur.No.72/3 (new Survey No.72/3-C2) measuring an extent of 75 cents in Thiruvidanthai, Semmancheri Village, Tirupporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'), on the ground that the first respondent herein/plaintiff is the owner of the property through a Sale Deed No.2095/1982 dated 10.11.1982. While the defendants 1 to 3 are the daughters of one Mrs.Senthamarai Ammal, the plaintiff is her grandson, through her pre-deceased son, Srinivasan. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 03.10.2003. The appeal in A.S.No.11 of 2003 against the decree was allowed on 16.08.2004. Thereafter, the plaintiff's Second Appeal in S.A.No.1053 of 2005 was dismissed by this Court on 05.03.2013, which judgment was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through its judgment dated 12.07.2013 passed in SLP. No.19883 of 2013.

(b) After the dismissal, the plaintiff had filed another suit in O.S.No.286 of 2013 against the same parties and impleading the District Collector, Kancheepuram and Tahsildar, Tirupporur as defendants together with them, wherein he had sought for the relief of declaration of title over the suit property, by relying upon the Sale Deed dated 10.11.1982. Since the cause of action for the present suit in O.S.No.286 of 2013 and the earlier suit in O.S.No.87 of 1995 was one and the same, the present revision has been filed to strike off the plaint on the ground of re-litigation and abuse of the process of law.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier suit in O.S.NO.87 of 1995, seeking for permanent injunction was based on the Sale Deed dated 10.11.1982, allegedly executed by Senthamarai Ammal in favour of the plaintiff. When the second appeal came to be filed before this Court, there was a specific finding therein, stating that the Sale Deed dated 10.11.1982 is not true and valid and thereby, the appeal filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed and subsequently,