Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Marathal Vs Palanisamy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
Marathal Vs PalanisamyMarathal v. Palanisamy

Dismissed¶62

Marathal v. Palanisamy

Madras HC7 Feb 2025AS/1141/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, AS No. 1141 of 2024, decided 07.02.2025 by N. Sathish Kumar, J. Appeal against rejection at threshold of partition suit O.S.No.603 of 2023 (II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur, order dated 15.02.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023) dismissed. Subject matter identical to O.S.No.8 of 1998, which ended in a final decree dated 11.11.2011 after dismissal of I.A.No.4 of 2004; second suit held to be re-litigation and abuse of process, rejectable at the threshold despite strict plaint-rejection grounds not applying. K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi (1998-3-SCC-573) followed; T.Arivanandam v. T.V.Satyapal (AIR 1977 SC 2421) referred. Appellants: Marathal, Manonmani, Chitra, Lakshmi (Senior Counsel P.Valliappan for S.Sithirai Anandam); Respondents: Palanisamy, Vadivel (N.S.Suganthan). Keywords: re-litigation, abuse of process, res judicata plea, rejection of suit, partition, final decree, connected CMP No.29326 of 2024 closed.

What did the court decide?

Even where the strict grounds for rejection of a plaint do not apply, a subsequent suit on the same subject matter, after an earlier suit between the parties has attained finality, cannot be allowed to continue; it is a clear abuse of process of law and can be rejected at the threshold on the ground of re-litigation. ¶47

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court is right in rejecting the suit (O.S.No.603 of 2023) at the threshold.

Court's answer

Even where the strict grounds for rejection of a plaint do not apply, a subsequent suit on the same subject matter, after an earlier suit between the parties has attained finality, cannot be allowed to continue; it is a clear abuse of process of law and can be rejected at the threshold on the ground of re-litigation.

Ratio / Principle

Since the earlier suit had already reached finality and a final decree had been passed, the present suit is nothing but re-litigation and sheer abuse of the process of the Court, contrary to justice and public policy.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal Suit (Madras High Court, N. Sathish Kumar, J) against the order of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur (15.02.2024, I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.603 of 2023) rejecting a partition suit at the threshold — dismissed. The suit properties were already the subject matter of O.S.No.8 of 1998 (partition), in which a preliminary decree was passed, an application to set it aside (I.A.No.4 of 2004) was dismissed, and a final decree was passed on 11.11.2011, the decree attaining finality. Though the strict grounds for rejection of a plaint may not apply, a second suit for the same relief after finality is re-litigation, an abuse of the process of Court and contrary to justice and public policy, and can be rejected at the threshold — following K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi (1998-3-SCC-573); T.Arivanandam v. T.V.Satyapal (AIR 1977 SC 2421) referred. Appeal dismissed with no costs; connected CMP No.29326 of 2024 closed.

A

AS No.1141 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

AS No. 1141 of 2024

& CMP No.29326 of 2024

1.Marathal, 2.Manonmani

3.Chitra

4.Lakshmi

Appellant(s)

Vs

1.Palanisamy

2.Vadivel

Respondent(s)

Prayer : This Appeal Suit has been filed against the fair and

decreetal order of the II Additional District and Sessions Court at Tiruppur,

dated 15.02.2024 in IA.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.603 of 2023.

For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam

For Respondent(s): M/s. N.S.Suganthan, for R1 & R2

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

1/8

ORDER

AS No.1141 of 2024

This Appeal Suit has been filed against the fair and decreetal order of the II Additional District and Sessions Court at Tiruppur, dated 15.02.2024 made in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.603 of 2023.

2.Challenge in this Appeal is made to the order of the trial Court rejecting the suit filed for partition. The suit has been filed by the appellants claiming partition of the first item of the suit properties and to divide the property into equal share and allot one share to the first plaintiff and also for a consequential declaration to declare the sale deeds executed in favour of the second defendant as null and void and similarly, a lease deed dated 03.02.2023 which was executed in favour of the third respondent.

To reject the said suit, an application in IA No.1 of 2023 has been taken out by the respondent/ first defendant. It is the contention of the respondent that the suit properties were already the subject matter of the earlier suit in O.S.No.8 of 1998, which was filed for partition. In the said

2/8

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

AS No.1141 of 2024

suit, a final decree came to be passed on 11.11.2011. The plaintiff in the present suit is also one of the parties in the above suit. Therefore, once the

decree has reached finality, the second suit is not maintainable for the same relief.

Resisting the said I.A., a counter has been filed by the appellants, contending that the judgment and preliminary and final decrees passed in the earlier suit in O.S.No.8 of 1998 are erroneous and there was no discussion in the judgment with respect to the origin of the properties and as to how the first petitioner is entitled to the suit properties and how the entire properties became ancestral in nature and that it is well settled law that limitation is a mixed question of law and the plea of res-judicata also has to be considered only during trial. However, the trial Court, considering the admitted fact that the present suit properties are the subject matter of earlier suit properties, which suit reached its finality, has rejected the suit. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present Appeal.

5.The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would submit that in

fact, the appellants found registered a Will in respect of the subject

3/8

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

AS No.1141 of 2024

properties which was in existence, but unfortunately, the same has not been brought to the notice of the trial Court on earlier occasion. Therefore, the present suit has been filed. According to him, the limitation aspect and the plea of res-judicata can be gone only at the time of the trial. Therefore, at this stage, the suit cannot be rejected at the threshold.

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire

materials placed on record.

In the light of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration is, 'whether the trial Court is right in rejecting the suit?

It is not denied by both the sides that the subject matter of the present suit in O.S.No.603 of 2023 is already the subject matter of the suit in the earlier suit in O.S.No.8 of 1998, wherein, a preliminary decree has been passed. An application was filed to set aside the preliminary decree in I.A.No.4 of 2004, which also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, it appears that the matter had reached finality and a final decree has been passed. The present suit is filed for the similar relief of partition. Though, the

4/8

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

AS No.1141 of 2024

grounds for rejection of the plaint will not strictly apply, this Court is of the view that still the suit cannot be allowed to be continued and if the suit is allowed to be continued, it is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law. The suit can be rejected at the threshold on the ground of re-litigation. The Apex Court has held in the case of “ K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi” reported in 1998-3-SCC-573, considering the fact that once the suit has already reached finality, the subsequent suit for similar relief, certainly can be rejected on the ground of re-litigation.

In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment in

“ T.Arivanandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal” reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that

“Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decrees with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such, litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive.

5/8

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

AS No.1141 of 2024

In the judgment in “ K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi” reported in

1998-3-SCC-573 , the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows :

“One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the Court is re litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. A proceeding being filed for collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.”

11.Since the earlier suit is already reached finality and final decree has been passed, the present suit is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The present suit is nothing but a re-litigation and it amounts to sheer abuse of process of Court and it is contrary to justice and public policy.

12.In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this Appeal.

6/8

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

AS No.1141 of 2024

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.02.2025

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No dn

To The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiruppur,

7/8

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

AS No.1141 of 2024

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J

dn

A.S.No.1141 of 2024

07.02.2025

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

8/8

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the trial Court is right in rejecting the suit (O.S.No.603 of 2023) at the threshold.¶42
The court held
Even where the strict grounds for rejection of a plaint do not apply, a subsequent suit on the same subject matter, after an earlier suit between the parties has attained finality, cannot be allowed to continue; it is a clear abuse of process of law and can be rejected at the threshold on the ground of re-litigation.ratio¶47

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.ModiFollowed¶47
K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi reported in 1998-3-SCC-573 · Who else cites this
T.Arivanandam Vs. T.V.SatyapalReferred¶49
T.Arivanandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 · Who else cites this

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Fair and decreetal order of the trial Court rejecting the suit (O.S.No.603 of 2023) filed for partition, made in I.A.No.1 of 2023.¶25
II Additional District and Sessions Court at Tiruppur · 15.02.2024
Prior proceeding
Earlier suit O.S.No.8 of 1998 was filed for partition in respect of the same suit properties; the plaintiff in the present suit was a party to it.¶27
Prior proceeding
Application I.A.No.4 of 2004 to set aside the preliminary decree in O.S.No.8 of 1998 was dismissed; thereafter the matter reached finality.¶43
Prior proceeding
Final decree was passed in O.S.No.8 of 1998 on 11.11.2011 and the decree attained finality.¶31
Prior proceeding
Present suit O.S.No.603 of 2023 filed by the appellants claiming partition of the first item of the suit properties, equal division with one share to the first plaintiff, and declaration that sale deeds in favour of the second defendant and a lease deed dated 03.02.2023 are null and void.¶26
Prior proceeding
Respondent/first defendant took out I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.603 of 2023 seeking rejection of the suit on the ground that the earlier decree had attained finality.¶27

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Marathal¶8
P.Valliappan (Sr.), S.Sithirai Anandam
appellant
Manonmani¶8
P.Valliappan (Sr.), S.Sithirai Anandam
appellant
Chitra¶9
P.Valliappan (Sr.), S.Sithirai Anandam
appellant
Lakshmi¶10
P.Valliappan (Sr.), S.Sithirai Anandam
respondent
Palanisamy¶13
N.S.Suganthan
respondent
Vadivel¶14
N.S.Suganthan

Coram

AI extract

N. Sathish Kumarauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 7 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 17 Dec 2024
Case no.: AS/1141/2024
CNR: HCMA011307622024
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: AS

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N. Sathish Kumar

C.Nallaiyan Vs Brindha Devi and 3 others
6 Feb 2025
The Union of India Vs N.Rethinambal
6 Feb 2025
S.Venkatesh Babu Vs T.M.Thomas @ Thomas Raj
6 Feb 2025
L. Saraswathi Vs G.Saraswathi
7 Feb 2025
Pradeepkumar Vs Orappam Village Peoples Develoment Welfare Association
7 Feb 2025
M.Annamalai Vs Y.M.C.a.College of Physical Education
7 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

Marathal v. Palanisamy, AS/1141/2024 (MAD), decided on 7 February 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited2

K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.ModiFollowed¶47
T.Arivanandam Vs. T.V.SatyapalReferred¶49

Open Authorities

Procedural history6

Fair and decreetal order of the trial Court rejecting the suit (O.S.No.603 of 2023) filed for partition, made in I.A.No.1 of 2023.II Additional District and Sessions Court at Tiruppur · 15.02.2024
Earlier suit O.S.No.8 of 1998 was filed for partition in respect of the same suit properties; the plaintiff in the present suit was a party to it.
Application I.A.No.4 of 2004 to set aside the preliminary decree in O.S.No.8 of 1998 was dismissed; thereafter the matter reached finality.

View full history

Bench / Coram

N. Sathish Kumar

Parties & counsel