The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata in property disputes, emphasizing that repeated claims regarding the same property, which have been previously rejected and confirmed by higher courts, are hopelessly barred by res judicata.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules to set aside the order, dated 23.03.2022 made in Appl.No.4115 of 2021 in C.S.No.326 of 2021 and reject the plaint in C.S.No.326 of 2021 with exemplary cost.)

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

1. This Original Side Appeal is filed by the defendants, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.03.2022 in Appl.No.4115 of 2021 in C.S.No.326 of 2021, in and by which, the prayer made by the appellants to reject the plaint is refused on the premise that the matter can be decided only after a full fledged trial.

2. The subject matter property is an extent of 3600 Sq.ft bearing new Door No.167, old Door Nos.64 & 64/A, Annai Indira Nagar, Konnur High Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023, comprised in survey No.71. Claiming ownership of the extent of 3600 Sq.ft and further claiming that of the 3600 Sq.ft, the plaintiff is in possession of an extent of about 1200 Sq.ft which is described as schedule-B in the plaint and claiming that some of the defendants are in possession of the rest of 2400 Sq.ft, which is described as schedule-C in the plaint, the suit in C.S.No.326 of 2021 was filed for the following reliefs:-

"a) to declare that the 1st Plaintiffs is the absolute owner of Suit B Schedule Property;

b) to declare the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of Suit C Schedule Property and direct the Defendants 7,9,10,11 & 16 to hand over and deliver vacant possession of the Suit C Schedule Property to the plaintiffs;

c) to declare the Decree passed in O.S.No.4747 of 1977 on 12.09.2007 by the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, does not pertain and bind to the Properties comprised in T.S.No.71/1, morefully described in the Schedule A comprised of B & C hereunder;

d) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/s, their men, agents, servants, representatives or any one claiming through him/her/them or in trust for him/her/them, from in any manner distributing plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule B & C Property;

e) for the costs of the suit; and "

3. Of the said reliefs, it is now submitted across the bar that the suit is not pressed in respect of the relief 'c'. A perusal of the plaint states that originally, one Gangammal purchased 7 1/2 grounds of property comprised in T.S.No.71 under sale deed, dated 16.07.1923. She adopted one M.Gurunathan as her son and Nagendiammal as her daughter. The plaint further states that of the 7 1/2 grounds, 3 1/4 grounds were allotted to Nagendiammal and 4 1/4 grounds were allotted to Gurunathan. The plaint further states that the said extent of 3 1/4 grounds was sub-divided as T.S.No.71/2 and 4 1/4 grounds was sub-divided as T.S.No.71/1. It further states that of the 4 1/4 grounds, the legal heirs of the said Gurunathan sold an extent of 6600 Sq.ft and a balance of 3600 Sq.ft is the schedule property in the suit. Thereafter, from paragraph No.9 onwards, the plaint states out in detail as to the litigation between Gurunathan and Ethirajan (who also claimed himself as adopted by Gangammal). It states that the said Gurunathan and Ethirajan had dispute in respect of the joint patta issued to the extent of 3 grounds and 356 Sq.ft in respect of T.S.No.71/2. Thereafter, the plaint states about O.S.No.9003 of 1973, filed by Gurunathan, claiming an extent of 740 Sq.ft and it is also mentioned in the plaint that the said suit was dismissed and an Appeal Suit filed against the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaint states about the suit filed by Ethirajan in O.S.No.4747 of 1977, claiming half share in respect of the lands comprised in T.S.No.71/2 and T.S.No.71/S (71/3) against the said Gurunathan. A preliminary decree was passed on 18.07.1983. An Appeal Suit was filed in A.S.No.384 of 1984 by the legal heirs of Gurunathan, since the said Gurunathan died, was dismissed. The Second Appeal preferred by the legal heir