CRP/1028/2024 of BALAMURUGAN Vs PUSHPARAJ on 7 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal dated 06.12.2023 in IA No.125 of 2022 in OS No.184 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/9th defendant under

CRP No. 1028 of 2024

Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of plaint came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.184 of 2017, seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the suit properties as the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties.

4. The petitioner, who is the 9th defendant, filed IA No.125 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint on the ground that he is the absolute owner of the property in S.No.27/2, measuring 1.51 acres, having purchased the same from the 8th defendant. He took the stand that the respondent’s father filed a suit in O.S.No.91 of 2022 before the District Munsif, Dharmapuri against the 8th defendant, seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and this suit was dismissed and it was further confirmed in appeal.

CRP No. 1028 of 2024

5. Apart from the above, OS No.18 of 2009 was filed by one Mohan and others seeking for the relief of partition and in that suit, the petitioner herein was the 3rd defendant and Ponnan @ Muniraj was the 1st defendant and 8th defendant in the present suit was the 2nd defendant. In that suit, the plaintiff was held to be entitled to 7/8th share. Even when that suit was disposed of, the Trial Court had also taken into consideration the fact that the 8th defendant herein had sold the property in S.No.27/2 in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the 1st defendant was held entitled for ½ share in the suit property. The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.59 of 2011 by judgment dated 27.04.2017.

6. While that being so, the present suit was filed without making any mention about the earlier suits and therefore, the petitioner took a stand that the suit itself is an abuse of process of law and re-litigation and sought for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata. The Court below dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

7. In the considered view of this Court, the right of the petitioner, who is the 9th defendant in the suit, is confined to S.No.27/2 measuring an extent of 1.51 acres. The suit has been filed by the respondent covering S.Nos.27/1 and

CRP No. 1028 of 2024

27/2. Insofar as the S.No.27/2 is concerned, the respondent/plaintiff cannot be permitted to re-litigate the matter, since one round of litigation was already done by his father, which attained finality in favour of the 8th defendant, from whom the petitioner/9th defendant had purchased the property. Therefore, the petitioner/9th defendant cannot be made to undergo the rigmarole of undergoing a trial with respect to S.No.27/2 once again.

8. When the above was put to the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, it is submitted that the plaintiff will prosecute the suit insofar as S.No.27/1 is concerned. Even in respect of S.No.27/1, a joint patta stands in the name of the 8th defendant. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaint will be amended accordingly before the Court below to include the necessary averments to prosecute the suit insofar as S.No.27/1 is concerned.

9. In the considered view of this Court, even if the rights of the 8th defendant are confined to S.No.27/2, which has already been sold in favour of the petitioner/9th defendant, just because the joint patta for S.No.27/1 stands in the name of the 8th defendant also, that will not, in any way, prevent the respondent/plaintiff from claiming right over S.No.27/1.

10. The respondent/plaintiff will be permitted to prosecute the suit with respect to S.No.27/1 as against defendants 1 to 8 and the petitioner/9th

CRP No. 1028 of 2024

defendant is not in any way, claiming right over S.No.27/1. This clarity will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the respondent/plaintiff.

11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed to the extent that the plaintiff will be permitted to prosecute the suit with respect to S.No.27/1 as against defendants 1 to 8 and insofar as S.No.27/2 is concerned, it is held to be the absolute property of the 9th defendant and this property and the 9th defendant will no longer form part of the suit that has been filed in O.S.No.124 of 2019. It is left open to the respondent/plaintiff to prosecute the suit in accordance with law and if required making the necessary amendment in the plaint with respect to S.No.27/1. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR

CRP No. 1028 of 2024

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR To The District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. CRP No. 1028 of 2024 07-10-2026