R. Padmasini vs Anthoni Amalraj

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 1422 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010294602024}
and
CMP No. 7659 of 2024
1. Padmasini R
D/o Rajagopal
45/3E, Nabigal Nayagam Street
Pudhupalayam, Cuddalore District
2. Somasundaram R
S/o Rajagopal
45/3E, Nabigal Nayagam Street
Pudhupalayam, Cuddalore District
Petitioners
Vs
1. Anthoni Amalraj
S/o Arokiadass
Rep by his Power
Agent Arokiadoss
st
28, Police Line 1 Street
Kamaraj Nagar, Panruti
Cuddalore District
2. Alex Rozario
S/o. Arokiadass
Rep by his Power
Agent Arokiadoss
st
28, Police Line 1 Street
Kamaraj Nagar, Panruti
Cuddalore District
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
3.R.Sivakumar
S/o Ramamurthi
No.7, VOC Street, Panruti
Cuddalore District
4. R.Krishnan
S/o. Ramalinga Padayachi
Muthandikuppam Village
Hamlet of Perperiankuppam, Panruti
Cuddalore District
5. S.Kalanidhi
W/o. Narasimhalu
No.9, Kamaraj Nagar, Panruti
Cuddalore District
6. Dr.Muralidharan
S/o. Narasimhalu
No.9, Kamaraj Nagar, Panruti
Cuddalore District
7. Dr.V.Panneerselvam
S/o. Vadivel Padayachi
th
No.117/1, Police Line, 4 Street
Panruti, Cuddalore District
Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, praying to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.296 of 2023 on the file of the
Principal District Judge at Cuddalore.
For Petitioners: Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
For Respondents: Mr.D.Baskar for R1 & R2
Mr.K.Moorthy for R5 & R6
Mr.E.Ashok Kumar for R7
R3-No appearance
R4-Died
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.296 of 2023 on the file of
the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore mainly on the ground of re-
litigation and abuse of process of law.
2. Heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and
carefully perused the materials available on record.
3. The respondents 1 & 2 are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in
O.S.No.296 of 2023 seeking for the relief of declaration of title to the ‘B’
schedule property and for permanent injunction.
4. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants 1 &
2 mainly on the ground that the suit filed by the respondents 1 & 2 tantamounts
to re-litigation, since the previous round of litigation has come to an end before
the Apex Court in the year 2022 and the respondents 1 & 2, as subsequent
purchasers, are attempting to resurrect an issue which has already attained
finality.
5. In order to appreciate the stand taken by the petitioners, this Court
went through the entire documents filed in the paper-book.
6. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.234 of 1996 on the file of the Sub
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
st nd
Court, Panruti by the 1 and 2 petitioners seeking for the relief of declaration
of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction as against the vendors
st nd
of the 1 and 2 respondents. The suit was decreed by the judgment and decree
dated 19.10.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the defendants
st nd
including the vendors of the 1 and 2 respondents herein preferred A.S.No.35
of 2003 before the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.2),
Cuddalore. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment and decree
dated 21.11.2003. Aggrieved by the same, S.A.No.1060 of 2004 came to be
filed before this Court. Even during the pendency of this second appeal, the
respondents 1 & 2, who are the plaintiffs in this case, filed C.M.P.No.751 of
2013 to implead themselves as respondents in the second appeal. It will be
relevant to take note of the averments made by them in the affidavit that was
filed in support of the petition and the same are extracted hereunder:-
“2. We are the bonafide purchasers of land
measuring 1671 sq.ft in S.No.51/5 ward No.B block
45 T.S.Nos.38 to 44 and old block No.9 T.S.Nos. 113
to 120 from the respondents 8, 9,10,12 &
13/appellants 8, 9, 10,12 & 13 who were added
as legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Munaf Sahib
st
who was the 1 defendant in No.234/96 on the file of
Sub Court, Panrutti under a registered document
dated 23.11.2009. We also purchased 695.5 sq.ft in
same said survey numbers under a registered
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
document dated 06.08.2012 from the legal heirs of
Abdul Jabar Sahib who is the 2nd defendant in
O.S.No.234/96 on the file of Sub Court, Panrutti. The
properties purchased by us totally measuring an
extent of 2366.5 sq.ft were in the possession of our
vendors. Our vendors derived their title from the
respondents 14 &15/Plaintiffs mother, Rengammal,
and her brother, Ramasamy.
3. It is stated in the plaint that a piece of
property measuring 0.27cents was originally owned
by Meenakshiammal the maternal grand mother of
the respondents 14&15/Plaintiffs. Meenakshiammal
during her life time sold the eastern 13 cents under
Ex.A4 dated 04.09.1924 to Hasan khan Sahib. After
her death her children, Rengammal (mother of the
plaintiffs) and her brother Ramasamy sold the
balance extent of land in their possession under a
registered sale deed dated 15.6.1950, Ex.A10 in
favour of Muthia Pillai. Both the properties covered
by Ex.A 4 and A10 were with measurements and
specific boundaries. The vendors under the
document Ex.A10 had not retained any part of the
property in the said survey number. And there was
no vacant site available and in possession of
Rengammal and her brother Ramasamy.
4. The property purchased by Muthia Pillai
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
from the mother of the Respondents 14 and
15/plaintiffs, was sold by him to one Mr.K.Subhan
Khan Sahib under Ex.A 11 on 14.5.56, who in turn
sold it to Khairoon Beevi Ammal under a registered
sale deed dated 25.2.1958 under Ex.A12. Khairoon
Beevi Ammal sold the property in her possession
and enjoyment to two portions-eastern 6 cents to
Saraswathi ammal and the western 6 cents to Mohd
Işmail, Ex.A13 and A15 respectively. Saraswathi
ammal had convened her rights to Piyari John under
Ex.A14. Piyari John and Mohammed Ismail then
exchanged their respective lands under Ex.A21 on
16.2.1966. The sale deeds above mentioned had
clearly mentioned the existence of a superstructure
in the properties sold and the purchasers under the
various documents had been enjoying their houses
by paying property taxes. While so the respondents
14&15 who had no subsisting interest in the suit
property filed the present suit on frivolous claim of
title. The respondents 14 and 15 had not denied the
sale deeds executed by their mother and had not
denied the title of the defendants to the properties
purchased by them. In such circumstances, the
respondents 14 and 15 cannot prevent the defendants
and their men and assignees from enjoying their
respective properties lawfully obtained by them and
in their possession for more than 63 years as of
today. These petitioners are in enjoyment of land
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
only an extent of 2366.5 sq.ft which is the subject
matter of sale in their favour and the petitioners are
not in enjoyment of any land in excess of the same.
5. We are the bonafide purchasers for valuable
consideration we were not aware of the pending
litigation between our vendors and respondents
14&15. We as normal and prudent men applied for
encumbrance certificate for about 25 years with Sub
Registrar's Office, Panrutti and was satisfied that
they are no encumbrances on the property we have
purchased. The property we have purchased is
bounded on the north by Sridevi on the east by road
which is koil maniyam on the south by police line
pattai and on the west by Dr.Pannerselvam clinic and
house. The respondents 14&15 alleged in their plaint
that the property purchased by us within the above
stated boundary is included in 'B' schedule property
of the plaint. I submit that it is not the property
owned by respondents 14&15 but it is a portion of
property sold by them under Ex.A10.
6. After purchase of the property we engaged a
contractor to build a complex on our land and got
our plan approval by the local authorities on
18.05.2011. The patta for the property which
originally stood in the name of our deceased D1&D2
was transferred to our name.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
7. The construction of the building was started
about one year back. A basement to a depth of 11
feet below the ground level was dug and the ground
floor is laid and concrete pillars were raised above it.
The construction is going on openly in front of the
Panrutti bus stand for the past one year.
8. On 19.07.2013 the Inspector of Police
Panrutti called us and stated that an injunction
restraining construction was obtained by respondents
14&15 against my vendors in this Hon'ble Court in
CMP.No.511/2013 in S.A.No.1060/2004 dated
09.07.2013.
9. We came to know of the pendency of
litigation only from the police on 19.07.2013.
Respondents 14215 have never exercised any right
over the property we have purchased. The
encumbrance certificate obtained by us did not
reveal any title in favour of respondents 14&15. The
recent record also does not stand in the name the
respondents 14&15 at any time. After having sold
the entire property left by the grand mother
Meenachiammal, the respondents 14&15 filed the
suit claiming as though some more extent of land
was available in the suit survey number after the
sales by their mother and grandmother.
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
10. From the material gathered from the
documents, plaint and written statement collected
from my vendors we are sure that our vendor's title
to the property purchased by us is perfect and
marketable. We have received legal opinion on the
same. We are necessary parties to the appeal. Only if
we are added parties to the appeal can be present our
case in the best manner possible.
11. From the affidavit and petition in
CMP.No.511 of 2013 in S.A.No.1060 of 2004, it
could be seen that the respondents 14&15 have
added us as parties to the petition and scored off our
names. This fact clearly proves the knowledge that
the respondents 14&15 were aware of our purchases
the building permission granted and our construction
work for the past one year. Respondents 14&15 have
allowed us to construct and now come forward with
this petition. The police at Panrutti when presented
with the question that there is no injunction as such
against us and that by scoring off our names in the
injunction affidavit and petition the respondents
14&15 did not aspire for an injunction against us.
The police replied that we come under category of
"men agent etc".”
7. This Court, by an order dated 09.01.2014, dismissed the petition on the
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
ground that it is not maintainable, since the respondents 1 & 2 are subsequent
purchasers of the property.
8. Ultimately the second appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment
and decree dated 13.02.2019 and this judgment was also reported in 2019 (4)
CTC 907.
st
9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the second appeal, the 1 appellant in the
second appeal filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the SLP
also came to be dismissed on 17.10.2022.
10. After the earlier round of litigation attained finality, the present suit
has been filed in O.S.No.296 of 2023. In the plaint that has been filed in
O.S.No.296 of 2023, the plaintiffs have attempted to give an impression as if
they are in possession and enjoyment of the ‘B’ schedule property as per their
sale deeds and this property was not a subject matter in the earlier suit that was
filed by their vendors.
st
11. The above suit filed by the plaintiffs has been questioned by the 1
nd
and 2 defendants on the ground that it is clear case of abuse of process of law
and re-litigation, which is liable to be interfered by this Court under Article 227
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
of the Constitution of India.
12. The main ground that was urged on the side of the respondents 1 &
2/plaintiffs is that the present suit property is different from the suit property
that was the subject matter in the earlier round of proceedings and the same can
be established only by way of letting in evidence and it requires appreciation of
evidence to decide the issue.
13. The respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs filed the impleading petition before
this Court when the second appeal was pending. While filing the impleading
petition, they did take a stand that they have purchased the property from their
vendors, who were the defendants in the said suit, and attempted to make their
claim in the second appeal. This attempt made by the respondents 1 &
2/plaintiffs was thwarted by dismissing their petition. They wait till the disposal
of the SLP before the Apex Court and thereafter, in the year 2023, the present
suit has been filed before the Court below.
st nd
14. In the considered view of this Court, the 1 and 2 respondents, who
are admittedly subsequent purchasers, have attempted to create an illusion as if
the suit property is different from the property that was the subject matter in the
earlier suit. If that is so, there was no need for them to make an attempt to
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
implead themselves in the second appeal. The plaintiffs are virtually attempting
to achieve indirectly what their vendors were not able to achieve directly in the
earlier round of litigation.
15. This Court is aware of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani and others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 143 , where the Apex
Court has made it clear that when there is an alternative remedy available under
the Civil Procedure Code, the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except where the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction becomes absolutely necessary.
16. In the case at hand, the ground raised is that the present suit is a re-
litigation and abuse of process. These are not grounds that are available under
Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. This Court has repeatedly held that abuse of process
and re-litigation being not a ground available under Order VII, Rule 11 and in
such exceptional case, this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of
this Court in the case of K.Suganthy v. R.Chandrasekaran and Others reported
in 2025 (4) MLJ 520 . Reference can also be made to the judgment of this Court
in the case of A.K.Hafasha and others v. Anees Banu and others reported in
2025 (5) MLJ 499 .
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
17. In the case at hand, on the face of it, it is quite clear that the
purchasers of the property are attempting to resurrect a litigation, which has
already come to an end, in which their vendors were parties. If the plaintiffs are
allowed to continue with one more round of litigation, there will be no end to
civil litigations and in such exceptional case, the Court has to necessarily
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even as
per the judgment of the Apex Court in P.Suresh’s case referred supra, the Apex
Court has made it abundantly clear that this Court can certainly exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction where it becomes absolutely necessary. This Court finds
that in the case at hand, it is absolutely necessary for this Court to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction to prevent any further abuse of process of law.
18. In the result, the suit plaint in O.S.No.296 of 2023 on the file of the
learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore is struck off and the present civil
revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous
petition is closed. No costs.
28-10-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ss
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
To
1. The Principal District Judge
Cuddalore
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

CRP No. 1422 of 2024
N.ANAND
VENKATESH J.
ss
CRP No. 1422 of 2024
28-10-2026
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )