IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Gopi - Appellant
Versus
Shanthi - Respondent
C.R.P.No.2315 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12182 of 2024
Decided on : 19-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the plaintiffs filed a suit for title declaration and injunction against the defendants. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. the revision petitioner argues for plaint rejection based on res judicata. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. the court examines the applicability of res judicata and the status of the earlier suit. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. the court rules against the application of res judicata due to pending appeal and differing causes of action. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. the court affirms the trial court's dismissal of the application to reject the plaint. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Aggrieved over the order of the IV Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Ponneri, dated 08.03.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023, dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in O.S.No.63 of 2023, the present revision has been filed by the 4th defendant in the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. Brief background of the case is as follows :
3.1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.63 of 2023 for declaration of title over the suit property; for consequential relief of permanent injunction as against the defendants 3 and 4; for declaration of the settlement deed dated 16.09.2013 in favour of the 2nd defendant as invalid; to declare the sale deed dated 01.06.2020 in favour of the 3rd defendant and the sale deeds dated 13.07.2022 and 03.08.2022 in favour of the 4th defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs; to declare the mortgage deed dated 01.12.2022 in favour of the 5th defendant as null and void; and also for permanent injunction.
3.2. Reddy Kuppana Mudali married Aayammal. Reddy Naasamma, Reddy Muthammal and Reddy Munusamy Mudali were the children born to Reddy Kuppana Mudali and Aayammal. Reddy Naasamma and Reddy Muthammal died at young age. They both did not have any issues.
3.3. Reddy Munusamy Mudali's first wife Nallammal was Kanakammal's daughter. Nallammal died issueless. Reddy Munusamy Mudali's second wife was Raakammal, daughter of Sundarammal and Reddy Rangappa Mudali. Reddy Munusamy Mudali and Raakammal had four children namely Balakrishnan, Kamatchi Ammal, Kangammal and C.M.Raja. Balakrishnan and his wife Manikammal had two children Devaraj and Malliga, who both died unmarried. Balakrishnan died about 50 years ago. Manikammal also is no more.
3.4. Reddy Munusamy Mudali and Raakammal had given their daughters Kamatchi Ammal and Kanagammal in marriage and provided them sufficient Shridhana. Kamatchi Ammal got settled with her husband Venkatasubaraju Mudali and Kangammal got settled with her husband Appavu Mudali. Kamatchi Ammal and Kangammal were settled immovable assets by way of settlement and they had given up all their rights and interest in the other family properties of Reddy Munusamy Mudali and Raakammal, including the suit properties. Only the last son C.M.Raja was taking care of Reddy Munusamy Mudali and Raakammal. The 1st plaintiff is the wife of C.M.Raja. Baakialakshmi, wife of Kothandam, Ragini, wife of Sadhasivam, and Gnanasekar (2nd plaintiff) are the children born to C.M.Raja and the 1st plaintiff.
3.5. Reddy Narayana Mudali married Periya Kuzhandhai @ Lakshmi Ammal. Sundarammal and Reddy Kishtappa Mudali were the children born to Reddy Narayana Mudali and Periya Kuzhandhai. Reddy Kishtappa Mudali married Amirthammal. They had no issues. Sundarammal was married to Reddy Rangappa Mudali. Their only daughter was Raakammal, who married Reddy Munusamy Mudali, S/o.Reddy Kuppanna Mudali, as detailed above.
3.6. Reddy Kishtappa Mudali's wife Amirthammal was the daughter of Chellappa Mudaliar and Paapammal. Kulappa Mudaliar and Annammal were the other children born to Chellappa Mudaliar and Pappammal. Kulappa Mudaliar and his wife Lakshmi had four children namely Ponnuvel Mudaliar, Kamsala @ Kowsalya (1st defendant), Prakasam and Rajababu. Out of them, 1st defendant and Rajababu alone are
K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi and others
S.J.S.Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others
V.S.P.Sivan and others v. Balashanmugam and others
Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and others
AI
The principle of res judicata does not apply when the earlier suit has not reached its finality and the causes of action in the subsequent suit are different.
The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided, confirming that the earlier judgment is binding and the current suit is not maintainable.
An application for plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only evaluates the plaint's contents without considering the defendant's defense. Res judicata principles need comprehensive analysis bey....
The court established that a unified decree involving both a suit and counter claim can be appealed as a single entity, and failure to raise res judicata at the appropriate stage results in waiver of....
It is settled law that while considering application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., defence is immaterial and Court has to only look into averments of plaint and application cannot be dec....
A plaint cannot be rejected based on constructive res-judicata at the initial stage; it requires full consideration of evidence.
A court must examine pleadings from both current and previous suits to determine if resjudicata applies, ensuring all relevant issues are considered.
The court emphasized that the present suit does not hit Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there is a cause of action to file the present suit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.