JUDGMENT :

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the findings given in A.S.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, dated 31.07.2012 the plaintiff has preferred the Second Appeal.

2. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, Syed Ahamed, he is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. The suit property originally comprised in S.F.No.364/2 of Pennakonam Village. The plaintiff purchased the said property through sale deed dated 19.09.1966 in Doc.No.2857 of 1966 to an extent of 0.66 cent in S.F.No.364/2. Then as per the sale deed dated 05.11.1966, in Doc.No.3224 of 1966, the plaintiff purchased another land to an extent of 2.82 cents and totally Acre 3.48 cents out of acre 5.80 cents. The plaintiff has been in possession of the lands from the date he purchased and he is cultivating the crops.

3.1. The said lands were subsequently sub-divided by the U.D.R.Scheme after due notice and enquiry. S.F.No.364/2 sub-divided as S.F.No.163/2E measuring Hec.0.45.5, S.F.No.163/2B, measuring Hec.0.26.5 and S.F.No.163/2F Hec.0.40.5 are described here as suit property. The said patta was granted to the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and that other properties in Patta No.376. The plaintiff has been paying kist of the said land.

3.1.2. The defendant alleges that he has got land in the area. He is enemical to the plaintiff. The defendant threatens the plaintiff to disposes the plaintiff unlawfully. The plaintiff is an aged person and hence the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents and their associates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.

4. The case of the petitioner/ defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of land to an extent of Acre 3.48 in S.F.No.364/2 lying in Pennakonam (south village). The alleged purchase of suit property with a larger extent by the respondent under two registered sale deeds is false. The alleged possession of the same by the respondent from 18.04.2009 onwards, is also incorrect.

5. The plaintiff herein filed a suit in O.S.No.440 of 1991 against the petitioner in connection with the same suit property with the very same averments regarding alleged ownership, and his possession of the suit property. A detailed written statement was filed in that suit. The plaintiff wantonly avoided to conduct the trial of the suit and ultimately that suit was dismissed for default on 02.03.1993. In order to restore the above said suit, he took out an application in I.A.No.624 of 1993 and the said application was dismissed on merits and which was confirmed by this Court on 11.10.1993.

6. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.10 of 1994 before the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur and the same was transferred to Perambalur, Sub-Court, in C.M.A.No.4 of 2008 and on merits the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Court, Perambalur, by an Order dated 05.01.2009 thereby confirming the Order passed in IA.No.624 of 1993 by the District Munsif, Perambalur.

7. Instead of filing the Civil Revision Petition before this Court against the order passed in CMA.No.4 of 2008, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2009 before the District Munsif, Perambalur, against the defendant claiming very same relief in respect of very same property.

8. It is the further case of the defendant that the present suit is a clear, wilful, wanton and deliberate misuse and abuse of process of law by the plaintiff. It amounts to subversion of judicial system. Launching re-litigation for issue which was already settled as against the very same party for the very same property in previous litigation has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. There is a dispute between him and the plaintiff since 1991 for the very same suit property, and contendi