The court upheld the principle of res judicata, confirming that relitigation of issues previously decided constitutes an abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. These three appeal suits have been preferred against two separate judgments and decree passed by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in O.S.Nos.4642 of 2020 and 4644 of 2020, dated 16.04.2025.

2.A.S.Nos.28 and 50 of 2026 have been filed by one Ms.A.Ramya (2^nd defendant in O.S.No.4642 of 2020 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.4644 of 2020) against the judgments and decrees dated 16.04.2025 in O.S.Nos.4642 and 4644 of 2020 and A.S.No.106 of 2026 has been filed by one Ms.Uma Maheshwari and two others (defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.4642 of 2020) against O.S.No.4642 of 2020.

3.The suit in O.S.No.4642 of 2020 has been decreed for declaration, for recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction and also for past mesne profits and also for damages for the use and occupation of the suit property from the date of the plaint till the date of handing over the possession to the plaintiff. The suit in O.S.No.4644 of 2020 filed for partition and also for declaration to declare the sale deed executed by her father as null and void, was dismissed by the trial court.

4.In this common judgment, the parties herein shall be referred to as per their rankings in the trial court in a judgment in O.S.No.4642 of 2020.

5.The suit in O.S.No.4642 of 2020 was originally filed before the Original Side of this Court in C.S.No.120 of 2012 and the suit in O.S.No.4644 of 2020 was also originally filed before the original Side of this Court in C.S.No.842 of 2013. When the suits were pending before this Court, this court by order dated 10.07.2018 directed the learned Master to conduct joint trial. The trial has been conducted and parties have been examined before this Court and later, in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction, both the suits were transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.Nos.4642 and 4644 of 2020. But, the fact remains that after the transfer of the suits to the trial court due to pecuniary jurisdiction, though the subject matter of both the suits are one and the same and issues are almost one and the same, the evidence has been recorded independently in both the suits and both the suits have been disposed of by separate judgments. We are of the view that merely because this court has ordered joint trial when the matter was pending before this court and later on transfer to the trial court, the evidence was recorded separately in both the suits and there was no objection whatsoever and the trial court has passed separate judgments in both the suits, will not have any impact in deciding the above three appeal suits together and therefore, as the subject mater of the suits and the issues in both suits are one and the same, we are inclined to dispose of all the three appeal suits by way of this common judgment.

6.The suit filed before the trial court in O.S.No.4642 of 2020 is taken as a lead case in this common judgment. The facts in O.S.No.4642 of 2020 which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:

(i)The plaintiff one Thirunavukkarasu in O.S.No.4642 of 2020 has filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction as against the defendants from dealing with the suit property. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was owned by one Mr.K.Arunkumar by virtue of purchase on 11.07.1994. The defendants 1 to 4 are wife and children of said Arunkumar and 5^th defendant is said to be the mortgagee of the suit property. The said Arunkumar has sold the property to the plaintiff on 28.11.2005. After registration of the property, the said