A suit cannot be sustained when an earlier judgment has become final, and the issues have already been decided under relevant inheritance laws.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. This revision has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.36 of 2021 pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

2.I have heard Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.Meenakshi Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent. Though there is no appearance for the respondents 2 to 27, in the light of the fact that the 1^st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 2021 and the relief in the revision being only to strike off the plaint filed by the 1^st respondent, the respondents 2 to 27 are only formal parties and hence, the hearing and disposal of the revision is not going to cause any prejudice to them.

3.Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would state that the present suit in O.S.No.36 of 2021 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, is a clear abuse of process of law. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to an earlier suit filed in O.S.No.1407 of 2015. The said suit was filed by the 20^th defendant in the present suit for partition. However, an application in I.A.No.269 of 2016 was taken out by the 18^th defendant in the said suit, who is the 2^nd petitioner in the present revision petition and the 17^th defendant in the present suit, seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Trial Court, by order dated 20.12.2019, finding that the property could not be inherited by the husband of Kamalammal, who was the original purchaser of the property in the year 1955, in the presence of legal heirs of father of Kamalammal, proceeded to reject the plaint.

4.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the present plaintiff, the 1^st respondent herein was the 16^th defendant in the earlier suit and therefore would be bound by the earlier judgment and decree, the suit having been rejected. He would further state that being a suit for partition, even the defendants are to be construed as plaintiffs and therefore, having not challenged the earlier judgment and decree, it is the contention of Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, the present suit is not maintainable. He would further state that in such circumstances, the present suit cannot be continued and there is no useful purpose also, since the finding that the husband of Kamalammal is not entitled to any share having become final, there is no cause of action accruing to the present plaintiff/1^st respondent, to stake a claim in the suit property. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore pray for the suit in O.S.No.36 of 2021 to be struck off, invoking the powers available under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

5.Per contra, Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would state that firstly, the application to reject the plaint in the earlier suit was filed by one of the defendants and the present plaintiff was not a party to the said application and was also not heard before the plaint came to be rejected and therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the said rejection order passed in the earlier suit would not bind the present plaintiff, the 1^st respondent herein. Secondly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the suit property was purchased by Kamalammal, out of her Sreedhana property and therefore, the property would have to go only under the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and her husband would become entitled to a share in the property and therefore, these issues will have to be tried and the plaint cannot be struck off in limine. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would state that after the plaint was rejected in the earlier suit, within a year, the present suit has been filed for partition and therefore, when the earlier judgment and decree is not binding on the 1^st respondent/plaintiff, the present su