Mr. S.Parthasarathy v. 1

C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Siddharth,Government AdvocateORDERThis Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Vanur. 2. The civil revision petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The reliefs sought for in the suit are as follows:(1) thjpapd; jhth rp ml;ltiz brhj;J mDgtj;jpy; 1 Kjy;““” 3 gpujpthjpfs; vt;tpjj;jpYk; jiyaplkhy;gof;F mth;fis epue;jukhf jil bra;Jk;.(2) jhth rp ml;ltiz brhj;ij 1 Kjy; 3 gpujpthjpfs;“” ahUf;Fk; fpiuak; bra;ahky;gof;F epue;jukhf jilbra;Jk;.(3) jhth gp ml;ltiz brhj;jpy; 63 brz;il gphpj;J el;Ls;s“” fw;fisa[k; ntypiaa[k; mg;g[wg;gLj;j 1 Kjy; 3 gpujpthjpfSf;F cj;jutpl;Lk; mg;go bra;aj;jtWk;gl;rj;jpy; nfhh;l; fl;lis K:yk; mg;g[wg;gLj;jt[k;”3. The plaint has three schedules of property. Insofar as the A schedule property is concerned, no relief has been sought for. The relief of injunction has been sought for with regard to the C schedule property. Insofar as the B schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff sought for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the boundary 2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024stones and if not, to have it done through the process of the Court. 4. The present proceeding has a checkered history. A total extent of 16 acres and 50 cents is comprised in S.No.23/2, Vanur Taluk, Kottakuppam Village. Of this, 12.50 acres belonged to one Sabapathy Mudaliar. The said Sabapathy Mudaliar had given this extent of 12.50 acres to three brothers, namely, Ramanuja Naicker, Panduranga Naicker and Narayanasamy Naicker for cultivation.5. Sabapathy Mudaliar presented O.S.No.22 of 1984 seeking for the relief of declaration and for the relief of permanent injunction. The brothers claimed, they are cultivating tenants and hence, resorted the suit. Pending the suit, the parties entered into a compromise. As per the terms of the compromise, this property measuring 12.50 acres which belonged to Sabapathy Mudaliar was carved out into two portions. With respect to 11 acres and 10 cents, it was agreed by the defendants that it belonged to Sabapathy Mudaliar and family. With respect to the remaining 1 acres 40 cents, it was agreed that it belonged to Narayanasamy Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker. 6. Subsequently, Narayanasamy Naicker initiated O.S.No.77 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Vanur. This was a suit for partition and 3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024separate possession. In this suit, A schedule proeprty was the ancestral property of the family. The property allotted to Ramanuja Naicker and Narayanasamy Naicker in O.S.No.22 of 1984 was shown as B schedule property in the said suit. In the said suit, Narayanasamy Naicker, Ramanuja Naicker, Panduranga Naicker as well as the purchaser of 4000 sq.ft., namely, one, Kaleel Basha were made parties. 7. After a detailed trial, O.S.No.77 of 1996 was decreed insofar as the A schedule property is concerned and dismissed insofar as the B schedule property is concerned. It was held that Narayanasamy Naicker is entitled to a 1/3rd share in the A schedule property. It was also held that Panduranga Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker are entitled to equal shares in the B schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, Narayanasamy Naicker preferred an appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2003 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The judgement and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.8. Thereafter, Ramanuja Naicker initiated two suits in O.S.No.58 of 2003 and O.S.No.101 of 2007. Both the suits ended in dismissal. Aggrieved 4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024by the same, Ramanuja Naicker represented by his legal representatives presented two appeals, A.S.Nos.32 & 33 of 2011. 9. A.S.No.32 of 2011 is filed against O.S.No.58 of 2003 and A.S.No.33 of 2011 is filed against O.S.No.101 of 2007. As the issues are common in both the appeals, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam heard the appeals and dismissed the appeal against O.S.No.58 of 2003 and partly allowed the appeal against O.S.No.101 of 2007.10. The decree in A.S.No.33 of 2011 reads that, Ramanuja Naicker and his legal heirs are entitled for lesser relief of permanent injunction restraining Narayanasamy Naicker and his sons from interfering with the western 70 cents of property excluding the 4000 sq.ft., alienated in favour of Kaleel Basha in S.No.23/2. 11. Narayanasamy Naicker, the brother of Pandurangan, though he lost the partition suit with reference to S.No.23/2, seems to have approached Pandurangan and obtained an irrevocable power of attorney on 21.07.2003. On the strength of the irrevocable power of attorney, he executed a sale deed in favour of his three sons, namely, Sivakumar, Balakrishnan and Durairaj. 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024The alienation made by Pandurangan through his power of attorney in favour of Sivakumar and the others is for the half share that he was declared to be entitled to in O.S.No.77 of 1996.12. Pending the appeals in A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011, the parties have specifically pleaded that Ramanuja Naicker and his legal heirs are entitled to 70 cents of land in the aforesaid survey numbers and that Ramanuja Naicker cannot claim an exclusive right over the entire extent of 1.40 acres.13. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Kaleel Basha is the bonafide purchaser of the property and therefore, he is entitled to have every right over the property purchased by him. The Court finally decreed that out of the 1 acre 40 cents which was allotted to Panduranga Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker, Ramanuja Naicker is entitled to 70 cents excluding the 4000 sq.ft alienated by them.14. After having obtained this decree in their favour, the son of Ramanuja Naicker has presented this suit seeking for a right over the very extent which had been allotted by the Judgment in O.S.No.77 of 1996 to 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024Ramanujam and Pandurangan. Hence, it is pleaded that it a clear case of re-litigation since the matter has been already gone into by the Court from 1984 onwards and consequently, it is urged that the suit should be struck off from the file of the court.15.Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.16. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.Prakash Adiapadam, would submit that this is a classic case of re-litigation. He would invite my attention to paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the plaint, where the plaintiff had been emboldened to plead before the learned District Munsif at Vanur that judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in previous round of litigation is wrong and erroneous. He would state that an appropriate remedy for the party is only to file a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree and it is not open to the parties to file a fresh suit seeking to set aside the judgment and decree that had been obtained in the previous proceedings. 17. Per contra, M/s.A.L.Ganthimathy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.A.r.Karthik Lakshmanan, would submit that there is a 7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024dispute in the identity of the property and even if the averments in paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the plaint are to be ignored, the parties have to be pushed for trial. She would submit that the plaintiff/first respondent has preferred two Second Appeals against the judgments in A.S.No.32 of 2011 and A.S.No.33 of 2011 in S.A.SR.No.10131 of 2020 and S.A.SR.No.160852 of 2019, respectively on 24.01.2020. She would submit that the papers have been misplaced by the Registry and the first respondent is making a diligent search for the same. 18. The narration of the rounds of litigation between the parties makes it clear that the judgment and decree granted in O.S.No.77 of 1996 dated 29.01.2003 granting the rights to Pandurangan and Ramanujan had attained finality.19. I have carefully considered the arguments on either side and gone through the materials available on record.20. There is no dispute between the parties that the property originally belonged to one Sabapathy Mudaliar. He presented O.S.No.22 of 1984 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024against Narayanansamy Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker. The defence that was taken in the suit was that the defendants were in occupation of the property as cultivating tenants. In order to claim that right, they had approached the authorities under that Special Legislation. This suit in O.S.No.22 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tindivanam never went for trial. It was compromised between the legal heirs of Sabapathy Mudaliar, and Narayanasamy Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker on 21.03.1991.21. In terms of settlement, the entire extent for which the suit had been presented namely 12 acres and 50 cents was divided into two extents namely 11 acres and 10 cents and 1 acre 40 cents.22. With respect to 11 acres and 10 cents, the parties agreed that it would belong to Sabapathy Mudaliar's family namely the plaintiffs therein and the remaining 1 acre 40 cents would go to the defendants. Just before the settlement had been arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendants in that suit, Ramanuja Naicker purchased an extent of one acre on 18.02.1991. This was not a subject matter of O.S.No.22 of 1984. 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 202423. Subsequently, Narayanasamy Naicker instituted another suit claiming for 1/3rd share in his ancestral assets being engaged in common with Ramanuja Naicker and Panduranga Naicker and 1/2 share in the property that came to the brothers by virtue of compromise in O.S.No.22 of 1984. This suit was filed before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Vanur. It was numbered as O.S.No.77 of 1996. 24. In O.S.No.77 of 1996, the learned Trial Judge, after a detailed discussion, granted 1/3rd share in the ancestral assets and dismissed the suit. With respect to B schedule property. In order to arrive at the said conclusion, the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 23 of the said judgment held as follows: Mf nkw;brhd;d tifapy; jhth gp ml;ltizr; brhj;J““” thjpia tpLj;J. 1. 2 gpujpthjpfSf;F nru ntz;oaJ vd;W Kot[r;bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjd; mog;gilapy;. gp ml;ltizr; brhj;J thjp“” kw;Wk; 1. 2 gpujpthjpas; ml';fpa Tl;L jhth m ml;ltiz brhj;Jf;fs; 3 rnfhjuh;fspd; bghJ Flk;g brhj;J vd;Wk;. gp ml;ltiz Flk;g brhj;J ,y;iy vd;nw Kot[r;bra;ag;gLfpwJ/”25. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam by 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024Narayanasamy Naicker as well as by Panduranga Naicker, the second defendant therein. Narayanasamy Naicker's appeal was received as A.S.No.5 of 2003 and the cross appeal of Panduranga Naicker was numbered as cross appeal No.5 of 2003. 26. After a detailed discussion, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge confirmed the said judgment and decree of the Trial Judge by way of a judgment dated 31.10.2005.27. It is not in dispute that the said judgment and decree has attained finality. Pending the appeal proceedings, Panduranga Naicker seems to have executed a general power of attorney dated 21.07.2003 granting power to his brother with respect to the properties that came to his hands by virtue of the settlement that had been arrived at in O.S.No.22 of 1984. After having received the power, Narayanasamy Naicker had executed a sale deed in favour of the civil revision petitioners, who are his sons, on 20.03.2006. 28. While the appeal suit was pending before the learned Subordinate Judge in A.S.No.5 of 2003, two other suits came to be filed by Ramasamy 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024Naicker against the present civil revision petitioners as well as Panduranga Naicker and others. These suits were received by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Vanur as O.S.No.58 of 2003 and O.S.No.101 of 2007.29. It is pertinent to point out that the suit properties in O.S.No.58 of 2003 was one acre that had been purchased by Ramanuja Naicker on 18.02.1991 and O.S.No.101 of 2007 related to the extent covered under the compromise in O.S.No.22 of 1984. 30. Before the learned Trial Judge, the parties agreed for a common trial and a common judgment was pronounced in both the suits. Both the suits were dismissed by the learned District Munsif on 21.03.2011. In the meantime, Ramanuja Naicker passed away and his legal heirs namely his wife Amaravathiammal, son Dhayalan (the first respondent herein) and daughters Kalaiselvi, Latha and Indira were brought on record. 31. The legal representatives of Ramanuja Naicker preferred A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam. The appeal suits were clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge in and by way of a 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024judgment dated 28.11.2017. 32. The appeal against O.S.No.58 of 2003 (the property purchased by Ramanuja Naicker on 18.02.1991) was dismissed. With respect to one acre 40 cents, as both sides had agreed that it had been divided between the parties, therefore, the Court modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. It held that the plaintiff therein (Ramanuja Naicker) is entitled to the western share in S.No.23/2 excluding the 4000 sq. ft., that had been alienated in favour of one Kaleel Basha and granted the lesser relief of permanent injunction. 33. Ms.Gandhimathy has stated that the judgments passed in A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 have not become final and the second appeals have been presented before this Court and the same is yet to be numbered. 34. The aforesaid facts, show that not once, had the issue of whether Ramanuja Naicker entitlement to a share in the property had been challenged first at the instance of Narayanasamy Naicker and thereafter, specifically at the instance of the Ramanuja Naicker himself. On four occasions, the Court had come to the conclusion that Ramanuja Naicker is entitled to a share in S.No.23/2 to an extent 63 cents (70 cents excluding the 4000 sq. ft. sold to 13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024Kaleel Basha). Having reached this conclusion, the plaintiff, i.e., the son of Ramanuja Naicker, in case he is aggrieved, should have agitated all his rights in the second appeals instead, he approached the learned District Munsif again by way of the present suit.35. A reading of the plaint shows that it is a classic case of re-litigation. For the sake of convenience, I am extracting the paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint:“6/ nkw;go thjpapd; je;ij uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; ehuhazrhkp nghpYk; mtUila Fkhuh;fshd nkw;go gpujpthjpfs; nghpYk; thD}h; khtl;l chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; X/v!;/58-03 tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;jhh;/ mjd;gpwF nkw;go ghz;Lu';fs; ehaf;fh; ehuhazrhkp ehaf;fh; kw;Wk; nkw;go 1 Kjy; 3 gpujpthjpfs; Mfpnahh;fs; nghpy; thD}h; khtl;l chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; X/v!;/101-07 tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;jhh;/ nkw;go ,UtHf;FfSk; epYitapy; ,Ue;jnghJ uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; fhykhfp tpl;lhh;/ Mifapdhy; mtUila thhpRfshd kidtp mkuhtjp mk;khs;. kfd; nkw;go thjp kw;Wk; kfs;fs; fiyr;bry;tp. yjh. ,e;jpuh Mfpnahh;fs; ghh;l;oahf nrh;e;J nkw;go ,uz;L tHf;Ffisa[k; elj;jp te;jhh;fs;/ ,uz;L tHf;FfSk; xd;whf tprhhpf;fg;gl;L 21?03?2011?y; js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;L thjpfSf;F vjpuhf jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;lJ/ me;j jPh;g;gpd; 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024nghpy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fhpd; thhpRfs; X/v!;/58-03 tHf;if bghWj;J V/v!;/32-11 mg;gPy;tHf;Fk;. X/v!;/101-07I bghWj;J V/v!;/31-11 mg;gPy; tHf;Fk; jpz;otdk; TLjy; rhh;g[ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;jhh;fs;/ ,uz;L nky; KiwaPLfSk; xd;whf tprhhpf;fg;gl;L 28?11?2017?y; jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 tHf;F jPh;g;g[ cWjp bra;ag;gl;Lk;. nkw;go X/v!;/101-07 tHf;F jPh;g;g[ uj;J bra;ag;gl;L nkw;KiwaPL mDkjpf;fg;gl;L Fiwthd ghpfhuk; tH';fg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 ,uz;L tHf;FfspYk; tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[fs; Kw;wpYk; jtwhditfshFk;/ ghz;Lu';f ehaf;fh; X/v!;/77-96 tHf;if elj;jhky; vf;!;ghh;l;o Mfptpl;lija[k; mtUila chpik vJt[k; jPh;khdpf;fg;glhjija[k; ftdpf;fg;glhky; Vnjh mtUf;F Mjuhthf jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;ljhf jtwhf g[hpe;Jbfhz;L nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 tHf;Ffs; bu!;$%onfl;lh njhc&j;jhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;ljhft[k; mjdhy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; nfhhpa ghpfhu';fs; fpilf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;Wk; Kot[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go X/v!;/77-96 tHf;fpd; jPh;g;g[ rhpahf Muhagltpy;iy/ nkw;go ghz;Lu';f ehaf;fhpd; chpik rl;lgo Kothfhj epiyapy; gp ml;ltiz brhj;jpy; mtUf;F ghjp ghfk;“” chpikapUg;gjhf fw;gid bra;J bfhz;L ehuhazrhkp ehaf;fUf;F gth; gj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhLj;jpUg;gJk; mijitj;J mth; mtUila Fkhuh;fshd nkw;go gpujpthjpfSf;F fpiuagj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhLj;jpUg;gJk; 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024rl;lj;jpd; ghh;itapy; ,y;yh epiyajhFk;/ nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 ,uz;L tHf;FfSnk nkbyGe;jthhpahf Kot[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd/ nkw;go ghz;Lu';f ehaf;fh; vf;!;ghh;l;o Mfptpl;l epiyapy; mtUila tHf;Fiunah my;yJ rhl;rpankh ,y;yhj epiyapy; mtUf;bfjpuhf X/v!;/77-96?Yk; kw;Wk; ehuhazrhkp jhf;fy; bra;j V/v!;/5-03?Yk; mjpy; ghz;Lu';fd; ehaf;fh; jhf;fhy; bra;j FWf;F nky; KiwaPl;oYk; tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[ rhpahdjhFk;/ Mifapdhy; gpd;dpl;l X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 jPh;g;g[fs; nkw;go X/v!;/77-96 kw;Wk; V/v!;/5-03 jPh;g;g[fis vt;tifapYk; fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ/ mnjhLkl;Lky;yhky; nkw;go X/v!;/77-96 jPh;g;gpw;F Kuz;gl;l epiyg;ghl;il vLj;J mspf;fg;gl;Ls;s X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 jPh;g;g[fSk; mjd;nghpy; Vw;gl;l V/v!;/32-11 kw;Wk; V/v!;/31-11 jPh;g;g[fSk; vt;tifapYk; bu!;$%onfl;lh tiuaiwf;Fs; tuhJ/ Mifapdhy; nkw;go jPh;g;g[fs; vjpuhf mike;j nghjpYk; uhkhD$ ehaf;fhpd; mog;gilahd chpikia gwpf;f KoahJ/7/ nkw;go uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; X/v!;/22-84 uh$pdhkh jPh;g;g[ Vw;gLtjw;F Kd;ghfnt fpiuak; bgw;w xU Vf;fh; jdpbrhj;jhFk;/ nkw;go tHf;fpy; uh$pdhkh K:yk; jug;gl;l 1 Vf;fh; 40 brz;L jdpbrhj;jhFk;/ mjdhy;jhd; ehuhazrhkp ehaf;fh; jhf;fy; bra;j X/v!;/77-96 tHf;fpy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fhpd; fpiua brhj;ij nrh;f;ftpy;iy/ uh$pdhkh ofphpgoahd brhj;ij kl;oy;jhd; gp“” 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024ml;ltizahf nrh;f;fg;gl;lJ/ ,uz;Lk; jdpj;jdp brhj;J vd;gjpdhy;jhd; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; 1 Vf;fh; rk;ke;jg;gl;l kl;oy; X/v!;/58-03. 1 Vf;fh; 40 brz;L rk;ke;jgl;l kl;oy; X/v!;/101-07 tHf;Fk; jhf;fy; bra;jhh;/ Mdhy; X/v!;/77-96 jPh;g;ig kl;Lnk bu!;$%onfl;lhtpw;F Mjhukhf vLj;J bfhs;sg;gl;lhy;jhd; nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 tHf;F jPh;g;g[fs; gpiHahfptpl;ld/ Mdhy; ,JtiuapYk; nkw;go X/v!;/77-96 jPh;g;g[ mKypy; ,Ue;J tUtjhy; mjd;go uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; mtUila chpikia epiyehl;l mUfija[ilath; Mthh;/ nkYk; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; fpiuak; bgw;w 1 Vf;fhpy; fyPy;ghc&htpw;F fpiuak; bfhLj;j 4000 r/mo nghf kPjpaplj;jpy; ahUk; ve;j chpika[k; nfhuhjjpdhy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; bgw;w fpiuak; ,d;W tiuapy; mKypy; ,Ue;JtUfpwJ/ Mifapdhhy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fUk; mtiuj;bjhlh;e;J mtuJ thhpRfSk; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; fpiuak; bgw;w 1Vf;fhpy; fyPy;ghc&htpw;F fpiuak; bfhLj;j 4000 r/mo nghf kPjpaplj;jpw;Fk; uh$pdhkh jPh;g;g[go fpilj;j 1Vf;fh; 40 brz;ow;Fk; rl;lgo chpika[ilath;fs; Mthhh;fs;/ cz;ikapy; X/v!;/77-96. X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 jPh;g;g[fis itj;J ghz;Lu';f ehaf;fnu mth; K:ykhf gth; gj;jpuk; bgw;w ehuhazrhkp ehaf;fnuh jhth ml;ltiz brhj;Jfspy; vt;tpj chpika[k; bfhz;lhlKoahJ/”36. The aforesaid extract portion would show that the plaintiff, who is 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024the son of Ramanuja Naicker, is attempting to question the correctness of the judgment and decree passed in the previous cases before the learned District Munsif at Vanur. 37. As to what is re-litigation has been settled by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573.38. If a party seeks to re-agitate the very same issue, which has been concluded by the Court, then the Trial Court or this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to nip the litigation in the bud. If the plaint in O.S.No.21 of 2024 goes for trial, it will be as if the learned District Munsif will be sitting on appeal over the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011. Such a reversal of hierarchical structure is impermissible. The entitlement of Ramanuja Naicker over the property, which had come to the family, had been settled by the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge and its correctness certainly cannot be questioned before the learned District Munsif. 18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 202439. My understanding of law is that, as against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, only this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has the power to set aside the same and that too, only on answering in favour of the appellant substantial questions of law. The said power can certainly not be exercised by the learned District Munsif. 40. The learned District Munsif, as held in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, should have been vigilant to exercise the powers vested with him under Order VII Rule 11 or Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and should have thrown the suit out. Unfortunately he seems to have entertained it and issued summons in the suit. 41. I must refer to the principles laid down in Ranipet Municipality v. M.Shamsheerkhan, 1997 SCC OnLine Mad 347. This case is covered by more than one of the vices pointed out by the learned Judge. If this suit were to continue on the file of the Court, it would amount to questioning the very foundation of the hierarchical structure of the Court. I will not permit the said hierarchical to be reversed. Therefore, I am of the view that the entire 19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024suit is an abuse of process of court.42. It invites the Court of lowest jurisdiction to set aside the judgment, which has been rendered by its superior. The learned District Munsif does not possess such power nor does the Code of Civil Procedure or the Specific Relief Act authorise such inversions.43. In the light of the above discussion, this civil revision petition is allowed. The suit in O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif at Vanur is struck off. The learned District Munsif at Vanur is requested to pass consequential orders on the basis of the orders passed in the previous suits and draft a decree striking off the suit from the file of the court. 44. Since the Appellants in A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 are said to have filed two second appeals, this judgment will not come in their way while agitating the correctness of the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in the said proceedings before this Court. 20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 202445. The civil revision petitioners will be entitled for a cost of Rs.50,000/- in this revision. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.09.2024 kan/nlIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/NoToDistrict Munsif, at Vanur21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. nl22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 202403.09.202423/23

C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Siddharth,Government AdvocateORDERThis Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Vanur. 2. The civil revision petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The reliefs sought for in the suit are as follows:(1) thjpapd; jhth rp ml;ltiz brhj;J mDgtj;jpy; 1 Kjy;““” 3 gpujpthjpfs; vt;tpjj;jpYk; jiyaplkhy;gof;F mth;fis epue;jukhf jil bra;Jk;.(2) jhth rp ml;ltiz brhj;ij 1 Kjy; 3 gpujpthjpfs;“” ahUf;Fk; fpiuak; bra;ahky;gof;F epue;jukhf jilbra;Jk;.(3) jhth gp ml;ltiz brhj;jpy; 63 brz;il gphpj;J el;Ls;s“” fw;fisa[k; ntypiaa[k; mg;g[wg;gLj;j 1 Kjy; 3 gpujpthjpfSf;F cj;jutpl;Lk; mg;go bra;aj;jtWk;gl;rj;jpy; nfhh;l; fl;lis K:yk; mg;g[wg;gLj;jt[k;”3. The plaint has three schedules of property. Insofar as the A schedule property is concerned, no relief has been sought for. The relief of injunction has been sought for with regard to the C schedule property. Insofar as the B schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff sought for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the boundary 2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024stones and if not, to have it done through the process of the Court. 4. The present proceeding has a checkered history. A total extent of 16 acres and 50 cents is comprised in S.No.23/2, Vanur Taluk, Kottakuppam Village. Of this, 12.50 acres belonged to one Sabapathy Mudaliar. The said Sabapathy Mudaliar had given this extent of 12.50 acres to three brothers, namely, Ramanuja Naicker, Panduranga Naicker and Narayanasamy Naicker for cultivation.5. Sabapathy Mudaliar presented O.S.No.22 of 1984 seeking for the relief of declaration and for the relief of permanent injunction. The brothers claimed, they are cultivating tenants and hence, resorted the suit. Pending the suit, the parties entered into a compromise. As per the terms of the compromise, this property measuring 12.50 acres which belonged to Sabapathy Mudaliar was carved out into two portions. With respect to 11 acres and 10 cents, it was agreed by the defendants that it belonged to Sabapathy Mudaliar and family. With respect to the remaining 1 acres 40 cents, it was agreed that it belonged to Narayanasamy Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker. 6. Subsequently, Narayanasamy Naicker initiated O.S.No.77 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Vanur. This was a suit for partition and 3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024separate possession. In this suit, A schedule proeprty was the ancestral property of the family. The property allotted to Ramanuja Naicker and Narayanasamy Naicker in O.S.No.22 of 1984 was shown as B schedule property in the said suit. In the said suit, Narayanasamy Naicker, Ramanuja Naicker, Panduranga Naicker as well as the purchaser of 4000 sq.ft., namely, one, Kaleel Basha were made parties. 7. After a detailed trial, O.S.No.77 of 1996 was decreed insofar as the A schedule property is concerned and dismissed insofar as the B schedule property is concerned. It was held that Narayanasamy Naicker is entitled to a 1/3rd share in the A schedule property. It was also held that Panduranga Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker are entitled to equal shares in the B schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, Narayanasamy Naicker preferred an appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2003 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The judgement and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.8. Thereafter, Ramanuja Naicker initiated two suits in O.S.No.58 of 2003 and O.S.No.101 of 2007. Both the suits ended in dismissal. Aggrieved 4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024by the same, Ramanuja Naicker represented by his legal representatives presented two appeals, A.S.Nos.32 & 33 of 2011. 9. A.S.No.32 of 2011 is filed against O.S.No.58 of 2003 and A.S.No.33 of 2011 is filed against O.S.No.101 of 2007. As the issues are common in both the appeals, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam heard the appeals and dismissed the appeal against O.S.No.58 of 2003 and partly allowed the appeal against O.S.No.101 of 2007.10. The decree in A.S.No.33 of 2011 reads that, Ramanuja Naicker and his legal heirs are entitled for lesser relief of permanent injunction restraining Narayanasamy Naicker and his sons from interfering with the western 70 cents of property excluding the 4000 sq.ft., alienated in favour of Kaleel Basha in S.No.23/2. 11. Narayanasamy Naicker, the brother of Pandurangan, though he lost the partition suit with reference to S.No.23/2, seems to have approached Pandurangan and obtained an irrevocable power of attorney on 21.07.2003. On the strength of the irrevocable power of attorney, he executed a sale deed in favour of his three sons, namely, Sivakumar, Balakrishnan and Durairaj. 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024The alienation made by Pandurangan through his power of attorney in favour of Sivakumar and the others is for the half share that he was declared to be entitled to in O.S.No.77 of 1996.12. Pending the appeals in A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011, the parties have specifically pleaded that Ramanuja Naicker and his legal heirs are entitled to 70 cents of land in the aforesaid survey numbers and that Ramanuja Naicker cannot claim an exclusive right over the entire extent of 1.40 acres.13. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Kaleel Basha is the bonafide purchaser of the property and therefore, he is entitled to have every right over the property purchased by him. The Court finally decreed that out of the 1 acre 40 cents which was allotted to Panduranga Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker, Ramanuja Naicker is entitled to 70 cents excluding the 4000 sq.ft alienated by them.14. After having obtained this decree in their favour, the son of Ramanuja Naicker has presented this suit seeking for a right over the very extent which had been allotted by the Judgment in O.S.No.77 of 1996 to 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024Ramanujam and Pandurangan. Hence, it is pleaded that it a clear case of re-litigation since the matter has been already gone into by the Court from 1984 onwards and consequently, it is urged that the suit should be struck off from the file of the court.15.Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.16. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.Prakash Adiapadam, would submit that this is a classic case of re-litigation. He would invite my attention to paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the plaint, where the plaintiff had been emboldened to plead before the learned District Munsif at Vanur that judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in previous round of litigation is wrong and erroneous. He would state that an appropriate remedy for the party is only to file a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree and it is not open to the parties to file a fresh suit seeking to set aside the judgment and decree that had been obtained in the previous proceedings. 17. Per contra, M/s.A.L.Ganthimathy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.A.r.Karthik Lakshmanan, would submit that there is a 7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024dispute in the identity of the property and even if the averments in paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the plaint are to be ignored, the parties have to be pushed for trial. She would submit that the plaintiff/first respondent has preferred two Second Appeals against the judgments in A.S.No.32 of 2011 and A.S.No.33 of 2011 in S.A.SR.No.10131 of 2020 and S.A.SR.No.160852 of 2019, respectively on 24.01.2020. She would submit that the papers have been misplaced by the Registry and the first respondent is making a diligent search for the same. 18. The narration of the rounds of litigation between the parties makes it clear that the judgment and decree granted in O.S.No.77 of 1996 dated 29.01.2003 granting the rights to Pandurangan and Ramanujan had attained finality.19. I have carefully considered the arguments on either side and gone through the materials available on record.20. There is no dispute between the parties that the property originally belonged to one Sabapathy Mudaliar. He presented O.S.No.22 of 1984 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024against Narayanansamy Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker. The defence that was taken in the suit was that the defendants were in occupation of the property as cultivating tenants. In order to claim that right, they had approached the authorities under that Special Legislation. This suit in O.S.No.22 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tindivanam never went for trial. It was compromised between the legal heirs of Sabapathy Mudaliar, and Narayanasamy Naicker and Ramanuja Naicker on 21.03.1991.21. In terms of settlement, the entire extent for which the suit had been presented namely 12 acres and 50 cents was divided into two extents namely 11 acres and 10 cents and 1 acre 40 cents.22. With respect to 11 acres and 10 cents, the parties agreed that it would belong to Sabapathy Mudaliar's family namely the plaintiffs therein and the remaining 1 acre 40 cents would go to the defendants. Just before the settlement had been arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendants in that suit, Ramanuja Naicker purchased an extent of one acre on 18.02.1991. This was not a subject matter of O.S.No.22 of 1984. 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 202423. Subsequently, Narayanasamy Naicker instituted another suit claiming for 1/3rd share in his ancestral assets being engaged in common with Ramanuja Naicker and Panduranga Naicker and 1/2 share in the property that came to the brothers by virtue of compromise in O.S.No.22 of 1984. This suit was filed before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Vanur. It was numbered as O.S.No.77 of 1996. 24. In O.S.No.77 of 1996, the learned Trial Judge, after a detailed discussion, granted 1/3rd share in the ancestral assets and dismissed the suit. With respect to B schedule property. In order to arrive at the said conclusion, the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 23 of the said judgment held as follows: Mf nkw;brhd;d tifapy; jhth gp ml;ltizr; brhj;J““” thjpia tpLj;J. 1. 2 gpujpthjpfSf;F nru ntz;oaJ vd;W Kot[r;bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjd; mog;gilapy;. gp ml;ltizr; brhj;J thjp“” kw;Wk; 1. 2 gpujpthjpas; ml';fpa Tl;L jhth m ml;ltiz brhj;Jf;fs; 3 rnfhjuh;fspd; bghJ Flk;g brhj;J vd;Wk;. gp ml;ltiz Flk;g brhj;J ,y;iy vd;nw Kot[r;bra;ag;gLfpwJ/”25. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam by 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024Narayanasamy Naicker as well as by Panduranga Naicker, the second defendant therein. Narayanasamy Naicker's appeal was received as A.S.No.5 of 2003 and the cross appeal of Panduranga Naicker was numbered as cross appeal No.5 of 2003. 26. After a detailed discussion, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge confirmed the said judgment and decree of the Trial Judge by way of a judgment dated 31.10.2005.27. It is not in dispute that the said judgment and decree has attained finality. Pending the appeal proceedings, Panduranga Naicker seems to have executed a general power of attorney dated 21.07.2003 granting power to his brother with respect to the properties that came to his hands by virtue of the settlement that had been arrived at in O.S.No.22 of 1984. After having received the power, Narayanasamy Naicker had executed a sale deed in favour of the civil revision petitioners, who are his sons, on 20.03.2006. 28. While the appeal suit was pending before the learned Subordinate Judge in A.S.No.5 of 2003, two other suits came to be filed by Ramasamy 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024Naicker against the present civil revision petitioners as well as Panduranga Naicker and others. These suits were received by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Vanur as O.S.No.58 of 2003 and O.S.No.101 of 2007.29. It is pertinent to point out that the suit properties in O.S.No.58 of 2003 was one acre that had been purchased by Ramanuja Naicker on 18.02.1991 and O.S.No.101 of 2007 related to the extent covered under the compromise in O.S.No.22 of 1984. 30. Before the learned Trial Judge, the parties agreed for a common trial and a common judgment was pronounced in both the suits. Both the suits were dismissed by the learned District Munsif on 21.03.2011. In the meantime, Ramanuja Naicker passed away and his legal heirs namely his wife Amaravathiammal, son Dhayalan (the first respondent herein) and daughters Kalaiselvi, Latha and Indira were brought on record. 31. The legal representatives of Ramanuja Naicker preferred A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam. The appeal suits were clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge in and by way of a 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024judgment dated 28.11.2017. 32. The appeal against O.S.No.58 of 2003 (the property purchased by Ramanuja Naicker on 18.02.1991) was dismissed. With respect to one acre 40 cents, as both sides had agreed that it had been divided between the parties, therefore, the Court modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. It held that the plaintiff therein (Ramanuja Naicker) is entitled to the western share in S.No.23/2 excluding the 4000 sq. ft., that had been alienated in favour of one Kaleel Basha and granted the lesser relief of permanent injunction. 33. Ms.Gandhimathy has stated that the judgments passed in A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 have not become final and the second appeals have been presented before this Court and the same is yet to be numbered. 34. The aforesaid facts, show that not once, had the issue of whether Ramanuja Naicker entitlement to a share in the property had been challenged first at the instance of Narayanasamy Naicker and thereafter, specifically at the instance of the Ramanuja Naicker himself. On four occasions, the Court had come to the conclusion that Ramanuja Naicker is entitled to a share in S.No.23/2 to an extent 63 cents (70 cents excluding the 4000 sq. ft. sold to 13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024Kaleel Basha). Having reached this conclusion, the plaintiff, i.e., the son of Ramanuja Naicker, in case he is aggrieved, should have agitated all his rights in the second appeals instead, he approached the learned District Munsif again by way of the present suit.35. A reading of the plaint shows that it is a classic case of re-litigation. For the sake of convenience, I am extracting the paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint:“6/ nkw;go thjpapd; je;ij uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; ehuhazrhkp nghpYk; mtUila Fkhuh;fshd nkw;go gpujpthjpfs; nghpYk; thD}h; khtl;l chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; X/v!;/58-03 tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;jhh;/ mjd;gpwF nkw;go ghz;Lu';fs; ehaf;fh; ehuhazrhkp ehaf;fh; kw;Wk; nkw;go 1 Kjy; 3 gpujpthjpfs; Mfpnahh;fs; nghpy; thD}h; khtl;l chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; X/v!;/101-07 tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;jhh;/ nkw;go ,UtHf;FfSk; epYitapy; ,Ue;jnghJ uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; fhykhfp tpl;lhh;/ Mifapdhy; mtUila thhpRfshd kidtp mkuhtjp mk;khs;. kfd; nkw;go thjp kw;Wk; kfs;fs; fiyr;bry;tp. yjh. ,e;jpuh Mfpnahh;fs; ghh;l;oahf nrh;e;J nkw;go ,uz;L tHf;Ffisa[k; elj;jp te;jhh;fs;/ ,uz;L tHf;FfSk; xd;whf tprhhpf;fg;gl;L 21?03?2011?y; js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;L thjpfSf;F vjpuhf jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;lJ/ me;j jPh;g;gpd; 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024nghpy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fhpd; thhpRfs; X/v!;/58-03 tHf;if bghWj;J V/v!;/32-11 mg;gPy;tHf;Fk;. X/v!;/101-07I bghWj;J V/v!;/31-11 mg;gPy; tHf;Fk; jpz;otdk; TLjy; rhh;g[ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;jhh;fs;/ ,uz;L nky; KiwaPLfSk; xd;whf tprhhpf;fg;gl;L 28?11?2017?y; jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 tHf;F jPh;g;g[ cWjp bra;ag;gl;Lk;. nkw;go X/v!;/101-07 tHf;F jPh;g;g[ uj;J bra;ag;gl;L nkw;KiwaPL mDkjpf;fg;gl;L Fiwthd ghpfhuk; tH';fg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 ,uz;L tHf;FfspYk; tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[fs; Kw;wpYk; jtwhditfshFk;/ ghz;Lu';f ehaf;fh; X/v!;/77-96 tHf;if elj;jhky; vf;!;ghh;l;o Mfptpl;lija[k; mtUila chpik vJt[k; jPh;khdpf;fg;glhjija[k; ftdpf;fg;glhky; Vnjh mtUf;F Mjuhthf jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;ljhf jtwhf g[hpe;Jbfhz;L nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 tHf;Ffs; bu!;$%onfl;lh njhc&j;jhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;ljhft[k; mjdhy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; nfhhpa ghpfhu';fs; fpilf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;Wk; Kot[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go X/v!;/77-96 tHf;fpd; jPh;g;g[ rhpahf Muhagltpy;iy/ nkw;go ghz;Lu';f ehaf;fhpd; chpik rl;lgo Kothfhj epiyapy; gp ml;ltiz brhj;jpy; mtUf;F ghjp ghfk;“” chpikapUg;gjhf fw;gid bra;J bfhz;L ehuhazrhkp ehaf;fUf;F gth; gj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhLj;jpUg;gJk; mijitj;J mth; mtUila Fkhuh;fshd nkw;go gpujpthjpfSf;F fpiuagj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhLj;jpUg;gJk; 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024rl;lj;jpd; ghh;itapy; ,y;yh epiyajhFk;/ nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 ,uz;L tHf;FfSnk nkbyGe;jthhpahf Kot[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd/ nkw;go ghz;Lu';f ehaf;fh; vf;!;ghh;l;o Mfptpl;l epiyapy; mtUila tHf;Fiunah my;yJ rhl;rpankh ,y;yhj epiyapy; mtUf;bfjpuhf X/v!;/77-96?Yk; kw;Wk; ehuhazrhkp jhf;fy; bra;j V/v!;/5-03?Yk; mjpy; ghz;Lu';fd; ehaf;fh; jhf;fhy; bra;j FWf;F nky; KiwaPl;oYk; tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[ rhpahdjhFk;/ Mifapdhy; gpd;dpl;l X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 jPh;g;g[fs; nkw;go X/v!;/77-96 kw;Wk; V/v!;/5-03 jPh;g;g[fis vt;tifapYk; fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ/ mnjhLkl;Lky;yhky; nkw;go X/v!;/77-96 jPh;g;gpw;F Kuz;gl;l epiyg;ghl;il vLj;J mspf;fg;gl;Ls;s X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 jPh;g;g[fSk; mjd;nghpy; Vw;gl;l V/v!;/32-11 kw;Wk; V/v!;/31-11 jPh;g;g[fSk; vt;tifapYk; bu!;$%onfl;lh tiuaiwf;Fs; tuhJ/ Mifapdhy; nkw;go jPh;g;g[fs; vjpuhf mike;j nghjpYk; uhkhD$ ehaf;fhpd; mog;gilahd chpikia gwpf;f KoahJ/7/ nkw;go uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; X/v!;/22-84 uh$pdhkh jPh;g;g[ Vw;gLtjw;F Kd;ghfnt fpiuak; bgw;w xU Vf;fh; jdpbrhj;jhFk;/ nkw;go tHf;fpy; uh$pdhkh K:yk; jug;gl;l 1 Vf;fh; 40 brz;L jdpbrhj;jhFk;/ mjdhy;jhd; ehuhazrhkp ehaf;fh; jhf;fy; bra;j X/v!;/77-96 tHf;fpy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fhpd; fpiua brhj;ij nrh;f;ftpy;iy/ uh$pdhkh ofphpgoahd brhj;ij kl;oy;jhd; gp“” 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024ml;ltizahf nrh;f;fg;gl;lJ/ ,uz;Lk; jdpj;jdp brhj;J vd;gjpdhy;jhd; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; 1 Vf;fh; rk;ke;jg;gl;l kl;oy; X/v!;/58-03. 1 Vf;fh; 40 brz;L rk;ke;jgl;l kl;oy; X/v!;/101-07 tHf;Fk; jhf;fy; bra;jhh;/ Mdhy; X/v!;/77-96 jPh;g;ig kl;Lnk bu!;$%onfl;lhtpw;F Mjhukhf vLj;J bfhs;sg;gl;lhy;jhd; nkw;go X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 tHf;F jPh;g;g[fs; gpiHahfptpl;ld/ Mdhy; ,JtiuapYk; nkw;go X/v!;/77-96 jPh;g;g[ mKypy; ,Ue;J tUtjhy; mjd;go uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; mtUila chpikia epiyehl;l mUfija[ilath; Mthh;/ nkYk; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; fpiuak; bgw;w 1 Vf;fhpy; fyPy;ghc&htpw;F fpiuak; bfhLj;j 4000 r/mo nghf kPjpaplj;jpy; ahUk; ve;j chpika[k; nfhuhjjpdhy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; bgw;w fpiuak; ,d;W tiuapy; mKypy; ,Ue;JtUfpwJ/ Mifapdhhy; uhkhD$ ehaf;fUk; mtiuj;bjhlh;e;J mtuJ thhpRfSk; uhkhD$ ehaf;fh; fpiuak; bgw;w 1Vf;fhpy; fyPy;ghc&htpw;F fpiuak; bfhLj;j 4000 r/mo nghf kPjpaplj;jpw;Fk; uh$pdhkh jPh;g;g[go fpilj;j 1Vf;fh; 40 brz;ow;Fk; rl;lgo chpika[ilath;fs; Mthhh;fs;/ cz;ikapy; X/v!;/77-96. X/v!;/58-03 kw;Wk; X/v!;/101-07 jPh;g;g[fis itj;J ghz;Lu';f ehaf;fnu mth; K:ykhf gth; gj;jpuk; bgw;w ehuhazrhkp ehaf;fnuh jhth ml;ltiz brhj;Jfspy; vt;tpj chpika[k; bfhz;lhlKoahJ/”36. The aforesaid extract portion would show that the plaintiff, who is 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024the son of Ramanuja Naicker, is attempting to question the correctness of the judgment and decree passed in the previous cases before the learned District Munsif at Vanur. 37. As to what is re-litigation has been settled by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573.38. If a party seeks to re-agitate the very same issue, which has been concluded by the Court, then the Trial Court or this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to nip the litigation in the bud. If the plaint in O.S.No.21 of 2024 goes for trial, it will be as if the learned District Munsif will be sitting on appeal over the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011. Such a reversal of hierarchical structure is impermissible. The entitlement of Ramanuja Naicker over the property, which had come to the family, had been settled by the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge and its correctness certainly cannot be questioned before the learned District Munsif. 18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 202439. My understanding of law is that, as against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, only this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has the power to set aside the same and that too, only on answering in favour of the appellant substantial questions of law. The said power can certainly not be exercised by the learned District Munsif. 40. The learned District Munsif, as held in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, should have been vigilant to exercise the powers vested with him under Order VII Rule 11 or Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and should have thrown the suit out. Unfortunately he seems to have entertained it and issued summons in the suit. 41. I must refer to the principles laid down in Ranipet Municipality v. M.Shamsheerkhan, 1997 SCC OnLine Mad 347. This case is covered by more than one of the vices pointed out by the learned Judge. If this suit were to continue on the file of the Court, it would amount to questioning the very foundation of the hierarchical structure of the Court. I will not permit the said hierarchical to be reversed. Therefore, I am of the view that the entire 19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024suit is an abuse of process of court.42. It invites the Court of lowest jurisdiction to set aside the judgment, which has been rendered by its superior. The learned District Munsif does not possess such power nor does the Code of Civil Procedure or the Specific Relief Act authorise such inversions.43. In the light of the above discussion, this civil revision petition is allowed. The suit in O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif at Vanur is struck off. The learned District Munsif at Vanur is requested to pass consequential orders on the basis of the orders passed in the previous suits and draft a decree striking off the suit from the file of the court. 44. Since the Appellants in A.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 are said to have filed two second appeals, this judgment will not come in their way while agitating the correctness of the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in the said proceedings before this Court. 20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 202445. The civil revision petitioners will be entitled for a cost of Rs.50,000/- in this revision. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.09.2024 kan/nlIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/NoToDistrict Munsif, at Vanur21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. nl22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 2024C.R.P.(PD).No. 2105 of 202403.09.202423/23