Madras HC Strikes Subsequent Buyers’ Suit, Finding They Tried To Reopen Their Vendors’ Title Dispute That Had Become Final

The petitioners had earlier obtained a decree for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction against the vendors of respondents 1 and 2.

The decree was upheld on appeal and in second appeal; the challenge before the Supreme Court was dismissed in 2022.

Respondents 1 and 2, who had purchased portions of the property from the defendants in the earlier suit, had unsuccessfully sought to be impleaded in the second appeal.

In 2023, they filed O.S. No. 296 of 2023 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, asserting that their property was distinct from the property involved in the earlier litigation.

The petitioners sought to strike off the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution, alleging re-litigation and abuse of process.

Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court, to be exercised sparingly and where necessary; the existence of an alternative remedy under the CPC ordinarily weighs against its exercise, but does not preclude intervention where it is absolutely necessary.

The Court stated that re-litigation and abuse of process are not grounds available under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, but may, in an exceptional case, warrant supervisory intervention to prevent abuse of the court’s process.

The Court considered the plaintiffs’ prior attempt to participate in the second appeal and their admissions that they had purchased the property from parties to the earlier suit.

It reasoned that, if the present property were genuinely distinct from the property previously litigated, there would have been no need for the plaintiffs to seek impleadment in that appeal.

The Court therefore found that the plaintiffs were attempting indirectly to pursue a claim their vendors had failed to establish directly, and that allowing another round of litigation would perpetuate abuse of process.

Although the plaintiffs argued that the identity of the properties required evidence, the Court concluded that supervisory intervention was necessary in the circumstances.

It allowed the civil revision petition and struck off the plaint in O.S. No. 296 of 2023; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.