C.R.P. No.1721 of 2016 &

C.M.P. No.9152 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.03.2023

CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

C.R.P. No.1721 of 2016 and

C.M.P. No.9152 of 2016

Chemplast Sanmar Limited

now known as

Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited

Rep. by K.Rajendran and M.V.Ravikumar

9 Cathedral Road

Chennai 600086

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Muniappan (Died)

2.Kasambu (Died)

3.Kalaiazhagan

4.Kuberasampath

5.Tamilarasi

6.Kala

7.Indiragandhi

8.Jayanthi @ Paranaswari

... Respondents

(Respondents 1 and 2 died. Respondents 3 to 8 brought

on record as LRs of the deceased R1 and R2 vide court

order dated 31.01.2023 made in C.M.P. Nos.12266 and

12270 o 2022 in C.R.P. No.1721/2016)

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, to set aside the fair and decretal order of the Principal District Munsif,

Cuddalore in dismissing I.A. No.979/2009 in O.S. No.583/2008 dated

05.04.2016 and reject the plaint in O.S. No.583 of 2008.

__________

Page 1 of 13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. No.1721 of 2016 &

C.M.P. No.9152 of 2016

For Petitioner

:

Mr.T.Ravichandran

For Respondents

:

Mr.R.Md.Nasurullah for R2

(No Appearance)

Mr.R.Dhanasekar for R3 &R4

(No Appearance)

O R D E R

The present revision is filed by the 7th defendant in O.S. No.583 of 2008,

which was filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground of abuse of judicial

process. O.S. No.583 of 2008 was laid by one Muniappan (first plaintiff) and

his wife Kasambu (second plaintiff) for declaration of their title described in 'A'

& 'B' schedules to the plaint.

2. It is not in dispute that 'A' schedule property originally belonged to the first

plaintiff and the 'B' schedule property belonged to the second plaintiff. On

20.03.2007, both the plaintiffs have entered into separate sale agreements for

sale of their respective properties in 'A' and 'B' schedule to the plaint with the

7th defendant. In terms of the agreements, the 7th defendant ought to pay a sale

consideration of Rs.5.51 Lakhs to 'A' schedule property, and for the 'B' schedule

__________

Page 2 of 13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. No.1721 of 2016 &

C.M.P. No.9152 of 2016

property, Rs.5.22 Lakhs is required to be paid. The entire sale consideration

was paid and on 20.04.2007, and the plaintiffs had executed separate

irrevocable Power of Attorney documents in favour of the 7th defendant. (This

court was informed that at the relevant time there was a misconceived embargo

on registering the sale deeds pertaining to these properties because of a

notification for acquisition of lands had been issued. Later, this acquisition

proceedings were quashed by the First Bench of this court vide order dated

05.03.2008 in W.P. No.11453 of 2007).

3. After the 7th defendant has obtained the irrevocable power of attorney

documents referred to above, the four daughters of the present plaintiffs had

laid O.S. No.93 of 2007 inter alia against the 7th defendant herein for partition

on the ground that the properties are ancestral in character and that they, as

daughters are entitled to a share in the same. According to the 7th

defendant/revision petitioner, it was forced to purchase peace with the 7th

defendant, and ultimately the suit was dismissed, as not pressed.

4. In the meantime, the present plaintiffs have filed O.S. No.622 of 2007 for

declaration of their title over the suit properties herein against his children and

__________

Page 3 of 13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. No.1721 of 2016 &

C.M.P. No.9152 of 2016

the 7th defendant herein/the revision petitioner. The 7th defendant/revision

petitioner on his part had laid O.S. No.90 of 2008 before the District Munsif

Court, Cuddalore for bare injunction against the plaintiffs and their sons. On

11.03.2008, this suit was compromised, based on the consent terms filed by the

plaintiff and the defendants, which are as below:

"1.Defendants