CRP/971/2024 of S. MANICKAM Vs GEETHA on 9 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.29 of 2023 on the ground of re-litigation and abuse of process of law.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs who have filed the suit in O.S.No.29 of 2023 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 2/3rd share in the suit property and to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2010 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs insofar as their 2/3rd share is concerned.

4. The suit has been filed with a cause of action that the plaintiffs have a 2/3rd share in the property, since the property is ancestral in nature and the 1st defendant, who is the father, at the best had only 1/3rd share in the properties and whereas, he has executed the Sale Agreement for the entire property which resulted in the decree for specific performance and the decree will not bind the plaintiffs insofar their 2/3rd share is concerned.

5. Before going into the grounds that have been raised in this Civil Revision Petition, this Court has to necessarily take into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in P.Suresh vs. D.Kalivani and Others reported in 2026 SCC online SC 143, wherein the Apex Court has held that wherever alternative remedy is available under the C.P.C., either under Order VII Rule 11 or under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C., the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the parties must be sent back to the Trial Court to workout their remedy.

6. In the case in hand, the ground that has been raised on the side of the petitioner is that it is a case of re-litigation and abuse of process of law. These are grounds that are not available under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., and therefore, the petitioner can seek for striking out the plaint only before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Useful reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in K.Suganthy vs. R.Chandrasekaran and Ors. reported in 2025 4 MLJ 520 and A.K. Hafasha and Ors. vs. Anees Banu and Ors reported in 2025 5 MLJ 499.

7. In the case in hand, it is contended that originally the properties were purchased by Meenachiammal and Kuppayee Ammal by Sale Deed dated 07.12.1960. Thereafter, there was a partition among the family members under a Partition Deed dated 07.11.1974 registered as Document No.3064 of 1974. In this partition, Kuppayee Ammal was allotted a share in S.No.260/1, measuring an extent of 2.24 ¼ acres. The said Kuppayee Ammal, through a Gift Deed dated 31.10.1984, gifted the property in favour of one Ramasamy Gounder and this document was registered as Document No.2472 of 1984. Later, Ramasamy Gounder executed the Settlement Deed in favour of Murugesan and Mani on 30.10.1984. But later, the Settlement Deed was cancelled on 13.06.1986 and subsequently, there was a partition among the parties on 15.09.1993, which document was registered as Document No.222 of 1993. In this partition, the father of the plaintiffs viz., Mani, was allotted three properties in (i) S.No.260/3

– 1.23 acres, (ii)S.No.260/1 – 1.38 acres and (iii)S.No.259/3 – 0.39 cents.

8. The said Mani, who is the father of the plaintiffs, entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 10.01.2008 with the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit. Since the Sale Deed was not executed, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2010 before the III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi, seeking for the relief of specific performance. Even in this suit, the said Mani claimed that the suit properties are ancestral properties and he did not have the right to execute an Agreement of Sale for the entire property.

10. The III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi, passed a judgment and decree dated 01.11.2022 and the relief as sought for by the petitioner was granted.

11. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi, the said Mani filed A.S.No.140 of 2023 before this Court and this Court, by Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2025, dismissed the appeal. Thus, the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2010 attained finality.

12. Thereafter, the said Mani’s mother, Kuppayee Ammal, filed O.S.No.445 of 2012, seeking for the relief of declaration that the Partition Deed dated 05.03.1993, Sale Deed dated 22.04.2009 and the Sale Agreement dated 10.01.2008 are null and void. The suit was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2019. Thus, after the completion of the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.5 of 2010, the said Mani’s mother institutes the present suit, which was dismissed and attained finality.

13. The third suit is the present suit filed in O.S.No.29 of 2023 by Mani’s children, seeking for the relief of partition and allotment of 2/3rd share in the suit property and to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2010 as null and void and not binding insofar as the 2/3rd share in the suit property is concerned. This suit has been put to challenge before this Court on the ground that it amounts to re-litigation and abuse of process of law.

14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs were not parties to the earlier suits filed by their father and that their father did not have the right to enter into an Agreement of Sale for the entire property and at the best, could have entered into an Agreement of Sale only for 1/3rd share in the property and that the stand taken by the father that, it is an ancestral property in which his children also had a share, was not gone into both by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and this issue was not decided in the earlier litigation. It is, therefore, contended that the effect of the decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2010 will have to be tested only before the Court below and the Court below must also go into the issue as to whether the property is ancestral in nature and if so, whether the earlier decree will bind the plaintiffs insofar as their 2/3rd share is concerned.

15. In the case in hand, the Agreement of Sale was entered into by the said Mani as early as on 10.01.2008. When the Sale Deed was not executed pursuant to the Agreement of Sale, the suit was filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.5 of 2010 for specific performance. In this suit, a written statement was filed by Mani to the effect that the property is an ancestral property and that the Sale Agreement could not be executed for the entire property. The concerned Court did not frame any specific issue in this regard. However, based on the pleadings and based on the evidence that was let in by both sides, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner has made out a case and a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the petitioners

16. When a decree is passed by a competent Court, it must be taken that the Court had considered all the contentions raised by the concerned party and thereafter passed the decree.

17. The decree was subsequently confirmed by this Court while dismissing A.S.No.140 of 2023 and confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. In such a scenario, it is too late in the day for the children of Mani to jump into the scene in the year 2023 and file the present suit, seeking for the relief of partition of the 2/3rd share and to declare the

Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2010 as null and void insofar as their 2/3rd share is concerned.

18. As stated supra, it must be kept in mind that even before this suit was filed, the said Mani’s mother filed another suit in O.S.No.445 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, and the same was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2019. Curiously, in the said suit filed by the mother of the said Mani, she did not take the stand that the property in question is ancestral property. Thus, on the one hand, Mani’s mother does not claim the property to be ancestral property and on the other hand, at a later point of time, Mani’s children filed a fresh suit in the year 2023, claiming the property to be ancestral property. What becomes clear is that the said Mani, who has suffered a Decree in O.S.No.5 of 2010, is somehow trying to get over the decree by making his family members file one suit after another against the petitioner by taking various stands.

19. In the case in hand, the materials placed before this Court makes it abundantly clear that it is a clear case of re-litigation orchestrated by the said Mani, who also, incidentally, is the 2nd defendant in the present suit. He has gone to the extent of making his children file the present suit to declare the decree that was passed in O.S.No.5 of 2010 as null and void and not binding. If litigation of this nature is encouraged and it is not nipped at the bud, there will be no end to civil litigations. It is only to deal with the litigations of this nature that this Court is vested with the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to ensure that civil litigation is not converted into a weapon to harass another party by abusing the process of law. In cases of this nature, this Court has to necessarily exercise its jurisdiction to stop the abuse of the process of law and nip it in the bud.

20. The upshot of the above discussion leads to the only conclusion that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is a clear case of re-litigation and abuse of process of law and consequently, the plaint filed in OS.No.29 fo 2023, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Villupuram, is struck off and the present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR To The Principal District and Sessions Court, Villupuram. CRP No. 971 of 2024 09-10-2026