The main legal point established in the judgment is that re-litigating issues already decided in previous suits and filing a suit as a tool of re-litigation constitutes an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 in I.A.No.212 of 2009 in O.S.No.57 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris.)

1. Some properties have the vexed luck of being litigated ad nauseam. The subject matter of the suit in the present revision is one such.

2. Originally, the property belonged to one S.G.Benett & Company. By way of a registered sale deed, the property was alienated in favour of the following persons: i) K.R.Andu ii)K.R.Raju iii)Minor.Korai iv)Minor.Sockraj v) Jahar Hali Mula Abdul Husaain Wagh

3. The purchase was by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1953. The second purchaser Raju, who was managing the properties, sold them without the knowledge of the first purchaser, Andu. This constrained him to file a suit for partition and separate possession on 03.09.1984 in O.S.No.161 of 1984. The parties to this suit were K.R.Andu and K.R.Raju and Jahar Hali Mula Abdul Husaain Wagh.

4. The purchase being in common, a preliminary decree followed on 16.08.1985. The following issues were framed in the suit:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff has released his undivided interest in favour of K.Rangai Gowder under a family arrangement dated 02.12.1975?

3. What is the correct share in the property etc.,

5. The trial Court while granting preliminary decree, declared that K.R.Andu is entitled to 1/4th share and further specifically held that K.Rangai Gowder did not get any right under the alleged family arrangement dated 02.12.1975.

6. This decree was challenged by R.Raju in A.S.No.888 of 1985. The appellate court held that the release deed dated 02.12.1975, relied upon by Raju is not true and valid and confirmed the preliminary decree. The appeal was dismissed on 09.11.2001. Subsequently, O.S.No.161 of 1984 was transferred to the file of District Munsif Court, Kothagiri and renumbered as O.S.No.46 of 1997.

7. In this suit, (i) Ammu Ammal, (ii) K.R.Chandran, (iii)K.R.Arjunan, (iv)K.R.Uraalthurai and (v) K.R.Ramesh have filed impleading application in I.A.No.361 of 2005 and the said application was dismissed on 08.02.2008. An application was taken in O.S.No.46 of 1997 for passing of a final decree in I.A.No.57 of 2008 and the said application was allowed on 13.02.2008.

8. Challenging the order refusing to implead the petitioners in I.A.No.361 of 2005, a Civil Revision Petition in CRP(PD) No.1624 of 2008 was filed before this Court. The said revision was dismissed on 28.01.2009. This does not put an end to the litigation in the family.

9. Pending O.S.No.161 of 1984, a suit in O.S.No.80 of 1987 came to be filed. This suit was subsequently transferred and re-numbered as O.S.No.78 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kothagiri. The plaintiffs in the suit were

(i) K.R.Hala Gowder,

(ii)K.R.Joghee,

(iii) K.R.Haldorai,

(iv) K.R.Ramesh,

(v) Korini Ammal,

(vi) Saroja,

(vii) Kamla,

(viii) Ganga and

(ix) Ammu Ammal.

Their claim in this suit was that they are the children of Rangai Gowder and that they should have been made a party to the suit in O.S.No.161 of 1984. According to them, the suit property had been purchased by Rangai Gowder as Benami in the name of his sons. When this suit came to the file of District Munsif Court, Kothagiri, it was renumbered as O.S.No.78 of 1996 and this suit for partition was dismissed on 08.04.2003.

10. Yet another suit came to be filed between K.R.Andu and K.R.Raju. This suit was for a partition of ½ (half) share in the suit property. This was numbered as O.S.No.155 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Udagamandalam. The suit was dismissed, against which, an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.29 of 2000 before District Court, Nilgiris. K.R.Raju di