G.Bhagwandas Vs R.Kannaiyan

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Prabakar for RR1 to 4, 6 , 7, 12 to 18 and 19 to 32 Dr.S.Suriya, Additional Government Pleader for RR33 Mr.F.Nepolean for RR8 to 10 Mr.D.Gopal Government Advocate For RR34 to 36

¶110

ORDER

¶111

The defendants 1 to 9 are the petitioners before this court seeking to strike

¶112

off the plaint in O.S.No.155 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Annur.

¶113

The main ground, on which, the plaint is sought to be struck off is

¶114

the abuse of the process of the court, fraud and suppression. In order to

¶115

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

¶116

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶117

appreciate the grievance of the petitioners before this court, it is necessary to

¶118

briefly touch upon the facts of the present suit and the defence taken in the form

¶119

of this revision petition by the defendants 1 to 9/revision petitioners herein.

¶120

The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the District

¶121

Munsif Court, Annur.

¶122

The plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.155 of 2024 for

¶123

the following reliefs:

¶124

“a. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 to 9

¶125

and her men, servants, agents, hire links from in any way and doing the process for layout and construction work in the suit property

¶126

b. Declaring the sale deed dated 22.06.1937 vide Doc.no.711/1937 at SRO, Periyanacikenpalayam in favour of Minor Rangasamy and Venkatachalam are null & void

¶127

c. Declaring the sale deed vide Doc.no.1750/1983, at SRO, Periyanacikenpalayam are null & void

¶128

d. Declaring the sale deed vide Doc.no.1751/1983, at SRO, Periyanacikenpalayam are null & void

¶129

e. Declaring the sale deed vide Doc.no.1752/1983,

¶130

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

¶131

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶132

1753/1983 at SRO, Periyanacikenpalayam are null & void.

¶133

f. Declaring the sale deed vide Doc.no.1753/1983, at SRO,

¶134

Periyanacikenpalayam are null & void.

¶135

g. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.10 to 13 and her men, servants, agents, hire links from in anyway not to sanction any approval and registration regarding in the suit property.”

¶136

It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Kali Konar was in possession

¶137

and enjoyment of the property measuring an extent of 7.93 acres described in

¶138

the suit scheduled property, which was purchased by him under the registered sale deed dated 08.10.1913 and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

¶139

the same till his death. On 27.04.1962, Kali Konar passed away leaving behind his wife Masiriammal and his four sons viz. Raasamy, Rangasamy, Arukutty and Venkatachalam (predeceased, who died as a bachelor and issueless) and a daughter Masiriammal, as his legal heirs. After the death of Kali Konar, his legal representatives were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property

¶140

jointly without any partition. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the

¶141

sons, daughter and grandchildren of Kali Konar and Masiriammal.

¶142

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

¶143

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶144

6.

¶145

The plaintiffs would contend that on 24.09.2021 when they had

¶146

applied for Encumbrance Certificate, they came to know about the registered sale deed dated 09.07.1937, under which, one Rayyak Konar and his wife Natchiyal purchased the share of Rama Konar, son of Ammasai Konar, to an extent of 3.96 acres in the name of his minor sons Rangasamy and Venkatachalam. They also came to learn that there were several other conveyances in respect of the balance extent of 3.96 acres. It is their contention that all those documents are fraudulent. Kali Konar died in the year 1962. The registered sale deed in the name of Rangasamy and Venkatachalam executed by Ammasai Konar is not true and valid document. Till the lifetime of Kali Konar, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and having full rights over the same. That apart Kali Konar's son is Ramasamy Konar and not Rama Konar. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in the year 2010 Masiriammal's (Kali Konar's daughter) legal heirs filed a partition suit against the other legal heirs claiming their mother's share in the suit property. The suit O.S.No.1736 of 2010

¶147

instituted before the V Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, was

¶148

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

¶149

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶150

dismissed as the parties had reported that an amicable settlement had been

¶151

arrived at. Thereafter, it is case of the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 to 9 created

¶152

a forged sale deed and had taken steps to form a layout, for which, they had sought approval. The defendants 10 to 13 without actually visiting the premises

¶153

has also granted approval. The plaintiffs have given several petitions regarding the same. They would submit that they are the absolute owners of the undivided

¶154

suit property as the legal heirs of the original owner Kali Konar. In the light of

¶155

the above facts, they have come forward with the suit in question.

¶156

The defendants 1 to 9/revision petitioners on receiving the

¶157

summons have filed this application for striking of the plaint.

¶158

The defendants 1 to 9 would contend that earlier a suit O.S.No.641

¶159

of 2021was filed before the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, seeking the

¶160

very same relief. The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs 13 to 16 in the present

¶161

suit against several persons including the defendants 1 to 6 herein and others in all totally 48 defendants. In the said suit an application for rejecting the plaint

¶162

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

¶163

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶164

was taken out and the plaint was also rejected by judgment and decree dated

¶165

02.12.2021 invoking the provisions under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. While rejecting the plaint, it was observed that it is

¶166

open to the plaintiffs therein to continue the suit O.S.No.1736 of 2010. The plaintiffs have thereafter filed I.A.No.623 of 2013 to restore the suit O.S.No.1736 of 2010 that was dismissed for default and filed a memo stating

¶167

that the dispute was settled out of court. By order dated 23.06.2022 the suit was dismissed as not pressed. The rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.641 of 2021 was

¶168

not challenged by the plaintiffs therein. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed seeking the very same relief.

¶169

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 9

¶170

that a mere perusal of the plaint would display the abuse and fraud that has been

¶171

committed. The cause title shows 32 plaintiffs and it would read that plaintiffs/power agent of plaintiffs 1 to 32. There is no clarity as to which plaintiff is represented by the power agent. The long cause title would also

¶172

proceed on the same basis, however, there is no reference to the power agent in

¶173

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

¶174

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶175

the long cause title. Though the suit is filed by 32 persons, only 2 persons have

¶176

signed the plaint. Therefore, even on this score, the plaint deserves to be struck off.

¶177

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the documents available on record.

¶178

The relief that has been claimed in the instant suit, which is the

¶179

subject matter in the civil revision petition, has been set out supra .

¶180

The suit O.SNo.641 of 2021 has been filed for these reliefs:

¶181

Mtzk; bgha;ahdJk;. bgaustpyhd epgkhdJ (Sham and nominal), ,y;yh epiyaJ. bgha;ahf g[ide;JUthf;fg;gl;lJ. mJ thjpfis fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; tpsk;g[if bra;af; nfl;Lk;.

¶182

M/ 09?09?1983?Mk; njjpa Mtz vz;/1750-1983 Mtzk; bgha;ahdJk;. bgaustpyhd epgkhdJ (Sham and nominal), ,y;yh epiyaJ. bgha;ahf g[ide;JUthf;fg;gl;lJ. mJ thjpfis fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; tpsk;g[if bra;af; nfl;Lk;.

¶183

,/ 09?09?1983?Mk; njjpa Mtz vz;/1751-1983

¶184

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

¶185

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶186

and

¶187

Mtzk; bgha;ahdJk;. bgaustpyhd epgkhdJ (Sham and nominal), ,y;yh epiyaJ. bgha;ahf

¶188

g[ide;JUthf;fg;gl;lJ. mJ thjpfis fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; tpsk;g[if bra;af; nfl;Lk;.

¶189

</ 09?09?1983?Mk; njjpa Mtz vz;/1752-1983

¶190

Mtzk; bgha;ahdJk;. bgaustpyhd epgkhdJ (Sham and nominal), ,y;yh epiyaJ. bgha;ahf

¶191

g[ide;JUthf;fg;gl;lJ. mJ thjpfis fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; tpsk;g[if bra;af; nfl;Lk;.

¶192

c/ 09?09?1983?Mk; njjpa Mtz vz;/1753-1983 Mtzk; bgha;ahdJk;. bgaustpyhd epgkhdJ (Sham and nominal), ,y;yh epiyaJ. bgha;ahf

¶193

g[ide;JUthf;fg;gl;lJ. mJ thjpfis fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; tpsk;g[if bra;af; nfl;Lk;.

¶194

C/ 09?09?1983?Mk; njjpa Mtz vz;/9559-2006 Mtzk; bgha;ahdJk;. bgaustpyhd epgkhdJ (Sham and nominal), ,y;yh epiyaJ. bgha;ahf g[ide;JUthf;fg;gl;lJ. mJ thjpfis vt;tpjj;jpYk; fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; tpsk;g[if bra;af; nfl;Lk;.

¶195

v/ tHf;Fr; brhj;Jf;fis ehd;F ruprk ghf';fshf gpupj;J. mjpy; krpupak;khSf;Fupa g';if ,U ruprk ghf';fshf gpupj;J. mjpy; xU ghfj;ij thjpfSf;F eye;jpfL fz;L xJf;fPL bra;a ntz;o/ ghfg;gpuptpid nfhupf;if bra;Jk;.

¶196

V/ tHf;Fr; brhj;Jf;fspy; thjpfspd; epiyahd cilikiaa[k;. mDgtj;ija[k; vjpu;thjpfs; jLf;ff;TlhJ vd vjpu;thjpfSf;bfjpuhf epiyf;fhy

¶197

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

¶198

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶199

cWj;Jf;fl;lis jPu;tHp tH';ff; nfl;Lk;.

¶200

c/ tHf;fpd; bryt[ bjhiffis thjpfSf;F vjpu;thjpfs; tH';ff; nfl;Lk;. tHf;Fiu jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;oUf;fpwJ/**

¶201

A mere comparison of these reliefs in O.S.No.641 of 2021 with the

¶202

reliefs in the present suit O.S.No.155 of 2024 would clearly indicate that they

¶203

are one and the same. Apart from O.S.No.641 of 2021, in which, plaint has been rejected, the plaintiffs have also filed suit O.S.No.1736 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The suit O.S.No.641 of 2021

¶204

was rejected invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by judgment dated 02.12.2021. The plaintiffs have, in

¶205

the instant suit, totally suppressed the earlier proceedings and the fact that the earlier suit was rejected. Therefore, taking note of the fact that the plaintiffs have come to the court with unclean hands by abusing the process of court and suppressing the material facts, the plaint has to necessarily be struck off. It is to be further noted that the suit has also not been filed by all the plaintiffs, since

¶206

the plaint contains the signature of only two plaintiffs and that apart the long

¶207

cause title does not even reflect the fact that the suit is filed by the power agent

¶208

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

¶209

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶210

on behalf of the plaintiffs. Relitigation has been frowned upon by this court as

¶211

well as by the Supreme Court. In K.K.Modi vs. K.N.Modi1 , the Supreme Court

¶212

has stated about relitigation as follows:

¶213

“44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of

¶214

the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. A proceeding being filed for a 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. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the court's discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit suceeding.”

¶215

1 (1998) 3 SCC 573

¶216

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

¶217

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶218

This plaint is a clean case of relitigation, more particularly, when the

¶219

earlier suit has been rejected after contest in an application to reject the plaint.

¶220

The judgment and decree in the earlier suit has also not been tested in appeal. Therefore, this civil revision petition is allowed and the plaint in O.S.No.155 of

¶221

2024 is struck off on the file of the District Munsif Court, Annur.

¶222

09-04-2025

¶223

nsd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶224

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

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

To

1. R.Kannaiyan

S/o.Late Rangasamy, D.No.4/18, Textoolnagar, Vishvasapuram, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore-35

¶229

2.Saraswathi

¶230

W/o.Somasundaram, D.No.4, VKC Nanjappagounder Nagar Karattumedu, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore-35

¶231

3.PARVATHI

¶232

W/o.Shanmugasundaram, 10G 1/2, 8th Street, Dharani Nagar, Ganapahypudhur, Coimbatore-6

¶233

4.AMIRTHAVALLI

¶234

W/o.Ramamoorthy, D.No.7/53-2, Balaji Nagar, Karattumedu, Keeranatham, Annur-641035

¶235

5.PADMAVATHY

¶236

W/o.Ramu, 756, Sathy Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-12

¶237

6.KRISHNAVENI

¶238

W/o.Damodarasamy, 118, Tabedar Street, Kattor, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore-12

¶239

7.R.Udayakumar

¶240

S/o.Rangasamy, 4/192, Textoolnagar, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore-35

¶241

8.RAJESHWARI

¶242

W/o.Arjunan, D.No.19(3) Barathidhasan Nagar, Meenampalayam, Thalakullam, Madurai

¶243

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

¶244

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶245

9.K.Viji

¶246

W/o.Kannaiyan, 153, Kalappan Layout, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore-9

¶247

10.RAMESHKUMAR S/o.Kanthasamy, 138, Kalappan Layout, Kattoor, Coimbatore-9

¶248

11.KRISHNAKUMAR S/o.Venkatachalam, 74, Kattoor, Ramnagar, Coimbatore

¶249

12.USHANANDHINI

¶250

D/o.Kumar, 903, Gandhima Nagar, Peelamedu Coimbatore-4

¶251

13.MAHALAKSHMI

¶252

W/o.Venkatachalam, 903, Gandhima Nagar, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-4

¶253

14.MYLISAMY

¶254

S/o.Venkatachalam, 151, Anuparpalayam, Ramnagar, Coimbatore-9

¶255

15.RAMESH

¶256

S/o.Venkatachalam, 903, Gandhima Nagar, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-4

¶257

16.KUMAR

¶258

S/o.Venkatachalam, 903, Gandhima Nagar, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-4

¶259

17.LAKSHMI

¶260

W/o.Karuppaia, 122E, Vinayagar Kovil Street, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore-27

¶261

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

¶262

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶263

18.Mohammed Shaheen S/o.Ahammed Sheriff, 122, Chellappagounder Street, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore

¶264

19.Mohammed Rizwan

¶265

S/o.Mohammed Shaheen, 122, Chellappagounder Street, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore

¶266

20.SHAKILABANU

¶267

S/o.Mohammed Shaheen, 122, Chellappagounder Street, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore

¶268

21.Mohammed Eliyas S/o.Mohammed Shaheen, 122, Chellappagounder Street, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore

¶269

22.POORANI

¶270

W/o.Kaliappan, NO.55, Textool, Subramaniyam Nagar, Ganapathy, Maanagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-6

¶271

23.NARAYANI

¶272

W/o.Parthasarathy, D.No.6, Thadagam Road Cross1, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-2

¶273

24.P.Sivakumar

¶274

S/o.Late Parthasarathy, D.No.964, Dhandapani Street, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore-37

¶275

25.USHA

¶276

D/o.Late Parthasarathy, D.No.11, 1st Floor, Chinnammal Street, Saibaba Colony, KK Pudur, Coimbatore-38

¶277

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

¶278

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶279

26.CHANDRA

¶280

W/o.Late Selvaraj, D.No.36F/15D, Bharathiyar Road, Nandhavanamthottam, Poosaripalayam, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-6

¶281

27.S.Nimeshkumar S/o.Late Selvaraj, D.No.36F/15D, Bharathiyar Road, Nandhavanamthottam, Poosaripalayam, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-6

¶282

28.SRIDEVI

¶283

D/o.Late selvaraj, D.No.36F/15D, Bharathiyar Road, Nandhavanamthottam, Poosaripalayam, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-6

¶284

29.R.Purusothaman

¶285

S/o.Ramasamy, D.No.116/13, 2nd Street, Sankara Nagar, Vilakurichi, Saravanapatti, Coimbatore-35

¶286

30.R.Karnan

¶287

S/o.Ramasamy, D.No.19/5, Manal Thottam, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-6

¶288

31.P.Balakrishnan

¶289

S/o.Parthasarathi, D.No.62, Radhakrishnan Street, Velandipalayam, Coimbatore-641025

¶290

32.S.Ashokkumar S/o.Somasundaram, D.No.4, VKN Nanjappagounder Nagar, Karattumedu, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore-641035

¶291

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

¶292

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶293

33.The Panchayat President Keeranatham Panchayat Office, Keeranatham, Coimbatore

¶294

34.The Tahsildar Annur Taluk Office, Annur, Coimbatore-641653

¶295

35.The Director District Urban Department, Corporation Complex, Coimbatore

¶296

36.The Sub Registrar, SRO, Periyanaickenpalayam

¶297

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

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

P.T.ASHA J.

nsd

CRP No. 2786 of 2024

¶302

09-04-2025

¶303

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

G.Bhagwandas v. R.Kannaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Bhagwandas v. R.Kannaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Saroj Rajanikant

Munirajamma Vs Neelamma

Dharani K Vs Karthick Kumar.D

Mangaiyarkarasi Vs Muthulakshmi

Somya @ Sowmya Rajeshwari Vs J.Susin

Karthik Lakshminarayanan Vs Nethravathi Balaraman