BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA C.R.P.(MD) No.2838 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD) No.12311 of 2018 Saritha ... Petitioner vs.

1.Jeyalakshmi

2.Senthilkumar

3.M.Muruganantham (R3 given up because the petitioner is not claiming any relief against R3)

... Respondents PRAYER:- This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.467 of 2018 in O.S.No. 9 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai, dated 06.12.2018.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.John for Mr.G.Jeremiah For R1 & R2 : Mrs.Vijaya Kumari Natarajan For R3 : Given up

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.467 of 2018 in O.S.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai. The 2^nd defendant is the revision petitioner before this Court. The order impugned in this revision is the dismissal of the application to reject the plaint in O.S.No.9 of 2018.

2.In order to appreciate the challenge to the said order, it is necessary to briefly touch upon the facts that has culminated in the filing of the above revision. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.

3.The plaintiffs had filed a suit O.S.No.9 of 2018 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The property in question was the building bearing Old.D.Nos.148, 149, 150 and 151, New.D.Nos.2/13, 2/15, 2/17 and 2/19 situated at Sivagangai Road, Keelkarai, Manamadurai.

4.The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint in question was that the suit property belonged to the husband of the 1^st plaintiff, who is the father of the 2^nd plaintiff, late.Ramakrishna Pillai, who had purchased the same from Ramasami Raju, S/o.Mallikarjuna Raju, and his minor children under a sale deed dated 03.03.1989. The plaintiffs' contention is that from the date of the purchase, Ramakrishna Pillai has been in possession and enjoyment of the property, where he was running a tea shop. Ramakrishna Pillai died on 19.07.2010 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. They have continued to run the tea shop.

5.The plaintiffs would contend that the predecessor in title of the property, Mallikarjuna Raju and his son, Ramasamy Raju, the vendor of late.Ramakrishna Pillai had filed suits O.S.Nos.49 of 1996 and 107 of 1998 against late.Ramakrishna Pillai for declaration and recovery of possession. The said suits were taken on appeal right up to this Court and it is a reported judgment in 2002 (1) CTC 523, as per which late.Ramakrishna Pillai's possession and enjoyment of the property was protected with an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession. Since there was an obstruction in his possession by the children of Mallikarjuna Raju, namely, his daughter, Usha Devi @ Usha Venkateswaran, and son, Ramasamy Raju, late.Ramakrishna Pillai had filed a suit O.S.No.50 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Manamadurai. This suit was decreed in favour of late.Ramakrishna Pillai, against which Usha Devi @ Usha Venkateswaran had filed an appeal in A.S.No.75 of 2007, which she later allowed to be dismissed for default on 22.06.2009. Therefore, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.50 of 2001 had attained finality.

6.While so, in the year 2014 around the month of March, the said Usha Devi @ Usha Venkateswaran attempted to sell the property to the third parties in order to create third party interest. The plaintiffs had issued a legal notice on 04.03.2014. A publication was also issued warning third parties from purchasing the property. However, under two sale deeds dated 14.12.2017, registered as Doc.Nos.2169/2017 and 2170 of 2017, the property was sold to the defend