Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39629
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, J
Roopan – Appellant
Versus
K.K.Ganesan – Respondent
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.956 of 2021 | C.R.P.(MD)Nos.957 of 2021 | C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2144 of 2023 | C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2145 of 2023 | C.R.P.(MD)No.1869 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Balasubramani, M.Suresh, H.Lakshmi Shankar, L.Prabakaran
For the Respondents: V.Meenakshisundaram, D.Nallathambi, L.Prabakaran, M.Mohaboob Athiff, B.Prasanna Vinoth
A court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off a plaint that constitutes an abuse of legal process, specifically where re-litigation of title-related issues already settled by a prior final decree is attempted.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 227 - Abuse of legal process - Re-litigation - The court has the power to strike off plaints under its extraordinary jurisdiction if maintaining the suits constitutes an abuse of process where issues have already been decided against the parties in previous proceedings that attained finality. (Para 15)
(B) Res Judicata - Injunction suit - Title - An injunction decree, in which the issue of title was directly and substantially an issue and decided, operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit where the same issue arises between the parties. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to strike off multiple suits (O.S.No.209 of 2020, O.S.No.232 of 2020, and O.S.No.311 of 2023) filed by various individuals claiming rights through a power of attorney holder or as leaseholders against the petitioners. The original title to the properties had been settled in a partition deed of 1972, and subsequent litigation (O.S.No.801 of 2007) resulted in an injunction decree against the claimants, which effectively declared they had no title to the properties in question.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the claimants were re-agitating issues already decided against their predecessors. The proxy litigation by the power agent and leaseholders, following the failure of the original partition suit and the adverse findings in the injunction suit, was held to be a clear abuse of the process of Court.
Issues: Whether the institution of the suits constituted an abuse of process of Court and whether they should be struck off under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of a court to invoke Article 227 to strike off a plaint is justified when the suit is a clear case of re-litigation, vexatious, or re-agitation of issues that have attained finality, as prosecuting such suits results in the waste of precious judicial time.
Result: Civil revision petitions allowed; suits struck off.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of factual history and origin of title disputes. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. analysis of the specific suits and prior adverse findings against the claimants. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's legal reasoning on abuse of process and re-litigation under article 227. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
COMMON ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioners want this Court to strike off the suits covered in their respective civil revision petitions.
3.It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Ammaiyappa Gounder. He had a son by name Subburayan and daughter by name Pitchaiammal. Rasammal was Subburayan's wife. A registered partition deed dated 12.09.1972 was executed between Ammaiyappa Gounder, Subburayan and Rasammal. The properties were divided into “A” schedule and “B” schedule. “A” schedule property comprised in S.No.169/B measuring 2 acres and 2 cents was allotted to Ammaiyappa Gounder. Other properties (B schedule) were allotted to Subburayan and Rasammal. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties fall under “B” schedule.
4.Following the demise of Ammaiyappa Gounder, his daughter Pitchaiammal filed partition suit in O.S.No.246 of 2005 against her brother Subburayan. During its pendency, Subburayan died on 14.12.2006. Whileso, on 22.02.2007 a exchange deed was executed between Rasammal and her daughter Amaravathy on the one hand and the adjacent land owner Selvaraj on the other hand. S.Nos.232/4 and 232/5 came to be allotted to Rasammal and Amaravathy. On 11.06.2007, Pitchiammal's partition suit (O.S.No.246 of 2005) came to be dismissed for default. On 03.12.2007, Pitchaiammal executed power of attorney in favour of S.Senthil in respect of half share of the partition suit schedule properties. On 18.12.2007, Rasammal, Amaravathy and Amaravathy's husband S.C.Vaiyapuri filed suit against Pitchaiammal, her legal heirs and her power of attorney / Senthil (fourth defendant) for permanent injunction. Senthil (fourth defendant) remained ex parte in the suit. The suit came to be decreed on 03.01.2013 as prayed for except in respect of two items (4 and 8). This judgment and decree dated 03.01.2013 made in O.S.No.801 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur became final.
5.Vaiyapuri and Amaravathy had two children namely, Roopan and Santhi Priya. Pitchaiammal had two children namely, Bhuvaneshwari and Thangamani. Thangamani has a wife by name Sangeetha. On 26.12.2014, sale deed was executed by S.C.Vaiyapuri in favour of his son V.Roopan. On 13.12.2020, release deed was executed by Pitchaiammal, Thangamani, Sangeetha and Bhuvaneshwari in favour of Roopan and Santhi Priya. In the mean while, during the pendency of O.S.No.801 of 2007, S.Senthil, the power agent of Pitchaiammal, executed lease deed in favour of M.Nagarathinam. He also executed an unregistered sale agreement dated 16.12.2019 in favour of one K.K.Ganesan and S.Arunkumar.
6.M.Nagarathinam, lessee claiming under the unregistered lease deed dated 01.02.2009 executed by Senthil, Pitchaiammal's power of attorney filed O.S.No.232 of 2020 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Karur for permanent injunction in respect of the properties covered under O.S.No.801 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.
7.K.K.Ganesan and Arunkumar filed O.S.No.209 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Court, Karur for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 16.12.2019 executed by S.Senthil, Pitchaiammal's power agent. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties are covered by the schedule in O.S.No.801 of 2007.
8.S.Senthil filed O.S.No.311 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur for declaration that the release deed dated 13.02.2020 executed by his principal Pitchaiammal and others is not binding on him and for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties whic
