Lourde Marie Dhambarane vs S.santhi

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:
Delivered on:
27-10-2026
29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.1196 of 2022
& CMP.Nos.6364 of 2022 & 6188 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA010209802021}
1. Lourde Marie Dhambarane
S/o.Late Paulin Damabarane
Rep.by his power agent
M.R.Ananth, Power Agent
Residing at No.23, Vanniyar St,
Vathikuppam, Pondicherry- 605 001.
2. Annibal Nehru
S/o.Late Annibal Victor,
Proprietor of Marvel Designs,
Having regd. office at No. 87,
Savarirayalu Street,
Puducherry- 605 001.
...Petitioners
Vs
S.Santhi, W/o.M.A.S.Subramanian,
Residing at No.83, 2nd Main Road,
3rd Cross, Vasan Nagar, Lawspet,
Puducherry- 605 008.
...Respondent
__________
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India
praying to strike off the plaint filed in O.S.No.756 of 2020 on the file
of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry.
For Petitioners: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, SC for
Mrs.P.Veena Suresh
For Respondent: Mr.G.Thangavel
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
The Constitution of India seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.
756 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Puducherry (for short, the Court below).
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available
on record.
__________
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
4. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking for the
relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants
from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit property on the ground that she was the owner of the suit
property by virtue of a sale deed dated 27.1.2012 and that the
petitioners/defendants were attempting to interfere with her
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
5. The main grounds that were urged on the side of the
petitioners/defendants are as follows:
(a) One Mr.Rolando Joseph was the tenant in the suit property
under the father of the first petitioner/first respondent –
Mr.Dambrun Paulin. A suit in O.S.No.945 of 1982 came to be filed
by the said Mr.Dambrun Paulin before the First Additional District
Munsif Court, Puducherry against the tenant seeking for ejectment
and it came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated
11.11.1983. The said judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated
11.11.1983 was reversed in A.S.No.25 of 1984 by the First
Additional District Court, Puducherry vide judgment dated
22.12.1987. Ultimately, this Court, vide judgment dated 18.8.2000
__________
Page 3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
in S.A.No.1441 of 1988, set aside the judgment and decree of the
First Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court. The judgment rendered by this Court in the said second
appeal was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.
5384 of 2001 by order dated 23.11.2005 by granting time for the
tenant till 31.8.2006 to vacate and hand over possession of the suit
property.
(b) Despite it, the tenant namely the said Mr.Rolando Joseph,
along with his wife, executed a registered settlement deed dated
10.8.2001 in favour of their son – one Mr.Rolando Kichor Alibar
Ashokan, who, in turn, executed two registered sale deeds, one in
favour of the respondent/plaintiff in the present case and another in
favour of one Ms.Nithiyadevi. The legal heirs of the said Mr.Dambrun
Paulin applied for cancellation of the said settlement deed dated
10.8.2001 and the sale deeds before the District Registrar,
Puducherry, who, by order dated 11.12.2015, cancelled the sale
deed executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
(c) In the meantime, at the instance of one Mr.Marie Joseph
Adrien Dambrun (a) Tambrun, in a land grabbing petition, the
Tahsildar, Puducherry, vide proceedings dated 11.2.2014, rendered
__________
Page 4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
a finding that the document in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and
that of the vendor were acts of fraud and that it was a fit case for
initiating criminal action apart from taking consequential action
pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated
23.11.2005. The said order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the
Tahsildar, Puducherry was put to challenge by the respondent/
plaintiff by filing W.P.No.5723 of 2014 and it was ultimately
dismissed by order dated 05.1.2016.
(d) The relevant portions in the said order dated 05.1.2016 in
W.P.No.5723 of 2014 are extracted as hereunder:
“4. The learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and
the learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents viz. Respondents 6 to 11,
submitted that the order impugned has been
passed based upon relevant records. It is not an
adjudication of title, but assessment of facts. In
pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court
in C.A.No.5384 of 2001, the petitioner does not
have any legal right. A fraud would vitiate all
solemn acts. The petitioner’s very sale deed
itself has to be set aside. The writ petition was
dismissed for default earlier. It is settled law
that once the writ petition is dismissed,
__________
Page 5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
consequently, interim order granted would also
get extinguished. Resultantly, the private
respondents have taken possession. Therefore,
there is no need to go through the process
before the Civil Court.
5. The facts as narrated speak for
themselves. Admittedly, the petitioner’s
vendor’s father through his son namely the
vendor of the petitioner, claimed title, who did
not have it. He was given time by the Apex
Court to vacate. The petitioner’s vendor at the
time of execution of the sale deed in favour of
the petitioner, certainly must have been aware
of the said happening. The circumstance, which
led to the execution of the document in favour
of the petitioner, as seen from the conduct of
the said Sakthivel and his counsel, speaks
volumes about the facts governing the case.
The impugned order cannot be said to be one
without jurisdiction. It merely states about the
facts surrounding the case. In fact, it is a
communication of the third respondent to the
second respondent. This Court cannot direct the
private respondents to follow a particular
method to enforce their rights, especially when
it is asserted by the learned counsel that the
said respondents have taken possession. Suffice
it is to state that this Court is not willing to go
into the said issue. As on today, the order
__________
Page 6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
passed by the District Registrar in DRP.No.45/
15 dated 11.12.2015 stands against the
petitioner though he can challenge it at a later
point of time, if he is advised to do so. Thus,
looking from any angle, this Court is of the view
that it cannot be said that the petitioner is
entitled to get the proceedings quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
It is needless to state that it is well open to the
petitioner to work out her remedy if she is of
the view that she is dispossessed illegally as the
said issue is one for adjudication between
private individuals.”
(e) The said Ms.Nithiyadevi, in whose favour, another sale
deed was executed, challenged the order dated 11.2.2014 passed
by the very same Tahsildar, who rendered a finding that she was a
land grabber, by filing W.P.No.12168 of 2014 and it was dismissed
by this Court by order dated 21.4.2023 after taking into
consideration the entire facts and also the proceedings initiated
against the respondent/plaintiff.
(f) The relevant portions in the said order dated 21.4.2023 in
W.P.No.12168 of 2014 read thus:
“11. More so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India has directed the tenant to evict the
__________
Page 7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
premises on or before 31.08.2006. Almost 16
years lapsed. Till today, the owner of the
property is unable to take possession of the
same despite the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. In this regard, the learned
counsel for the private respondents drew the
attention of this Court with reference to Order
XXI Rule 102, which is extracted herein under:
‘102. Rules not applicable to transferee
pendente lite.- Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall
apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of
a decree for the possession of immovable
property by a person to whom the judgment
debtor has transferred the property after the
institution of the suit in which the decree was
passed or to the dispossession of any such
person.’
12. In view of the fact that the petitioner
has no title over the property nor is the original
owner, he is liable to be evicted immediately. No
doubt, the original owner fought for long years
to establish his title. A suit instituted in the year
1982 came to an end in the year 2005 after a
lapse of 23 years. Considering the facts and
circumstances, the Apex Court directed the
tenants to vacate the subject property on or
before 31.08.2006. Even thereafter, petitioners
were successful in occupation in the premises
illegally under litigious continuance.
__________
Page 8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
13. If at all the petitioner had been
cheated by his vendor, then the petitioner has to
initiate all appropriate actions against his own
vendor and such action would not affect the right
of the original owner, who had already
established his right before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. The right to claim possession,
which was their relief claimed against the father
of the petitioner, is unconnected with the
eviction to be made against the illegal
occupants/petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not
entitled for any relief from the hands of this
Court.
14. Considering the fact that the
petitioner is in continuous possession despite the
orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
this Court is not inclined to grant any further
leniency in evicting the petitioner, since the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed an order
directing the tenant to vacate the premises on or
before 31.08.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner is
directed to vacate the premises and handover
the vacant possession to the respondents 6 to
11 within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
15. In the event of not vacating the
premises within a period of one month, then, the
respondents 1 to 5 are directed to evict the
petitioner with the assistance of the Police and
__________
Page 9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
handover the vacant possession to the
respondents 6 to 11 within a period of four
weeks thereafter.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to sue
his vendor for redressal of his grievances in the
manner known to law.”
(g) In the meantime, the present suit in O.S.No.756 of 2020
came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the Court below
seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the
petitioners/defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. Pursuant to that, the above civil
revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants
seeking to strike the present suit off the Register.
6. The grievance of the petitioners/defendants is that by
conveniently concealing all the above facts, the respondent/plaintiff
filed the present suit, that it would be an abuse of process of court
and that an attempt was made to get over the earlier judgments
and decrees passed by the competent civil court and also the orders
passed in the earlier writ petitions.
__________
Page 10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
P.Suresh Vs. D.Kalaivani [reported in 2026 (7) SCC 644] and
submitted that this Court could not entertain a petition filed under
Article 227 of The Constitution of India to strike off a plaint.
8. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on the side of
the respondent/plaintiff, this Court has to take into consideration
the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Suresh wherein
the relevant portions read as follows:
“37. When the powers under Article 227 of
the Constitution are of supervisory nature and
when the aforestated settled dictum of law is
that the High Court does not act as a court of
appeal or a court of error, it would logically
follow that the powers under Article 227 would
not be exercised when the non-exercise of such
powers does not result into miscarriage of justice
or deprivation of remedy in law to a party.
38. It is to be conceived as one of the
prohibited area for exercising Article 227 powers
where, in respect of the grievance for which
party has remedy in law, these powers are
surely to be invoked. The principle is therefore to
__________
Page 11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
be emphasized that the exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
has to be treated as an exceptional resort when
an alternative efficacious civil remedy by way of
appeal or revision or any other, like Order VII
Rule 11, CPC in the present case, is available to
the party for the redressal of the grievance.
39. The proposition that the availability of
alternative remedy shall be legitimately
construed to displace the exercise of
Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court, is
true not only for the purpose of exercising
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution but
also for the purpose of invoking Article 227 of
the Constitution.
40. In the garb of exercising supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution,
the High Court is not expected to engulf the
specific statutory remedy or provision in law
and, thus, become a supervisor over the court
below or the tribunal, as the case may be. It
would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for
the High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-
imposed discipline and to insist that the
aggrieved party should take recourse to such
alternative remedy or statutory provision
available in law, especially, for the case falling in
category indicated in Virudhunagar Hindu
Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai Vs. Tuticorin
__________
Page 12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
Educational Society [reported in 2019 (9) SCC
538 : 2019 (4) SCC (Civ) 643]   where remedy
available in the CPC for the cases falling under
category/other law also, where such specific
statutory remedy is available, the dictum laid
down herein is true to grant extent.”
9. In the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been
made clear that the Courts must resort to exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of The Constitution of India only when it becomes
absolutely necessary and that availability of alternative remedy
under the CPC cannot be displaced by invoking Article 227 of The
Constitution of India.
10. In the case in hand, it is a text book case where the
tenant in the suit property, in spite of giving an undertaking before
the Hon’ble Apex Court to vacate and hand over the premises,
managed to create a settlement deed in favour of his son, who, in
turn, created two sale deeds, one in favour of the respondent/
plaintiff and another in favour of the said Ms.Nithiyadevi. It is
relevant to point out that this Court had dealt with the entire facts in
detail while dismissing W.P.No.12168 of 2014 that was filed by the
__________
Page 13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
said Ms.Nithiyadevi by order dated 21.4.2023 and held that the
subsequent purchaser had no right over the property concerned,
that she was in illegal occupation of the property concerned, that
she indulged in land grabbing and that therefore, she would be liable
to be evicted immediately with the assistance of the police. The
relevant portions of the said order dated 21.4.2023 have also been
extracted supra.
11. The same reasoning will apply to the respondent/plaintiff
in the present suit. The respondent/plaintiff, apart from concealing
all the earlier proceedings upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and the
orders passed in the earlier writ petitions, has indulged in abuse of
process of court and used the Court to perpetuate illegality. Strictly
speaking, the acts on the part of the original tenant executing a
settlement deed in favour of his son and he, in turn, executing two
sale deeds in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and the said
Ms.Nithiyadevi would amount to contumacious conduct and would
tantamount to contempt of court.
__________
Page 14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
12. What becomes evident is that the owner of the suit
property has been made to run from pillar to post till date in spite of
succeeding in the earlier round of litigation upto the Hon’ble Apex
Court even in the year 2005. In the case in hand, the present suit
filed by the respondent/plaintiff is a clear abuse of process of court
and a re-litigation, which are not grounds that can be raised under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. This is a fit case where this Court has
to necessarily exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of The
Constitution of India in order to prevent further miscarriage of
justice and the supervisory jurisdiction has to be necessarily
exercised in the present case.
13. An attempt was made on the side of the respondent/
plaintiff as if the property more fully described in the present suit is
different from the property, which was the subject matter of the
earlier proceedings.
14. In the considered view of this Court, such a claim made by
the respondent/plaintiff, on the face of it, is unsustainable.
__________
Page 15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
15. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff is claiming
a right over the suit property by relying upon the settlement deed
that was executed in favour of the tenant’s son, who, in turn,
executed two sale deeds, one in favour of the respondent/plaintiff
and another in favour of the said Ms.Nithiyadevi. If that is so, the
claim made by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be against a different
property and it is very much the same property, which was the
subject matter of the earlier round of litigation.
16. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil
revision petition is allowed and the suit in O.S.No.756 of 2020 on
the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry is struck off
the register. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are
closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes
To
The Principal District Munsif
Court, Puducherry.
RS
__________
Page 16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4366
CRP.No.1196 of 2022
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS

CRP No. 1196 of 2022 &
CMP.Nos.6364 of 2022&
6188 of 2023
29-10-2026
__________
Page 17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:27 pm )