Suit for title declaration barred by 3-year limitation from title denial in prior injunction suit; res judicata applies to incidental title findings; alleged possession (disbelieved earlier) does not create continuing cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1.The plaintiff, aggrieved by concurrent findings rendered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is before this Court by way of the present Second Appeal.

2.The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 30.01.2025, on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation in terms of Articles 58 and 113 of the ?

(ii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by res-judicata due to the suit filed against third party for permanent injunction?”

3.I have heard Mr.N.Tamilmani, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayaraj for respondents 1 & 6 and Mr.R.Manoharan, learned Counsel for the respondents 4 & 5.

4.The brief facts which are necessary for adjudicating the Second Appeal are as hereunder:

4.1.The plaintiff claims that she had purchased the suit property under sale deed dated 03.01.1969 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, ever since. The suit filed in O.S.No.75 of 1996, before the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, is filed alleging that one Muthulakshmi was attempting to remove the name of the plaintiff from the revenue records. The said suit came to be dismissed on 20.06.1997 and as against the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.141 of 1997, before the Additional District Court. The appeal was also dismissed and the matter was taken up by way of Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.No.1006 of 2001. The said Second Appeal has been disposed of, giving liberty to the plaintiff to institute an independent suit, seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

4.2.In the meantime, since the plaintiff's name had been removed from the revenue records the plaintiff filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.13223 of 2012. The said Writ Petition was dismissed and taking advantage of the same, the defendant in the earlier proceedings, Muthulakshmi sold the suit property to the first defendant and also entered into an agreement of sale with defendants 2 and 3, with respect to an extent of 91 cents. Plaintiff alleges that defendants 2 and 3 are influential persons in the locality and they were trying to encroach upon the suit property.

4.3.The plaintiff also states that the suit property originally belonged to Karaikudi Nattars and Iluppakudi Devasthanam and suit was filed before the Subordinate Court, Devakottai in O.S.No. 91 of 1927, in which proceedings the plaintiff's vendor one Solaimalai was arrayed as 277^th defendant. The plaintiff claiming that defendants do not have any right over the suit property and are attempting to create encumbrance, filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4.4.The suit was resisted by the first defendant, denying the plaint allegations and also contending that the judgment passed in the earlier round of litigation commencing from O.S.No.75 of 1996 and culminating in Second Appeal in S.A.No.1006 of 2001, which clearly are barring the present suit by principles of res judicata. The first defendant has also alienated 1 acre and 50 cents, retaining 21 cents in and by registered sale deeds. The remaining extent is under the enjoyment of the first defendant. The suit property originally belonged to one Narasimma Iyer and only in order to encroach into the suit property belonging to the first defendant, the suit has been filed with fraudulent intentions. The second defendant has no connec