Tenant’s Son Sold Property After Eviction Decree; Madras HC Strikes Buyer’s Suit As Concealed Re-Litigation

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off the plaint despite the availability of remedies under the CPC.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favour of the defendants, holding that the exceptional circumstances justified intervention under Article 227 notwithstanding the availability of an alternative CPC remedy.

It also directed

It allowed the civil revision petition and struck off O.S.No.756 of 2020 from the register of the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry; it made no order as to costs and closed the connected CMPs.

01Facts

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.756 of 2020 seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, asserting ownership under a sale deed dated 27 January 2012 and claiming possession of the suit property.

p. 3

The defendants’ case was that the plaintiff’s title derived from a chain of transfers originating with a tenant whose eviction had been decreed in earlier litigation; the Supreme Court ultimately confirmed the eviction decree and gave the tenant time to vacate until 31 August 2006.

pp. 3–4

The District Registrar later cancelled the plaintiff’s sale deed, and the plaintiff’s challenge to related Tahsildar proceedings was dismissed in a writ petition.

pp. 4–7

A separate writ petition by another purchaser under the same chain of transfers was also dismissed, with directions for eviction.

pp. 7–10

The defendants sought to strike off the present plaint under Article 227, arguing that the plaintiff had concealed the prior proceedings and was abusing the court process.

pp. 10–11

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off the plaint despite the availability of remedies under the CPC.

pp. 11–13

ii.Whether the suit, in light of the prior litigation and the plaintiff’s asserted title through the same chain of transfers, constituted an abuse of process warranting intervention under Article 227.

pp. 13–16

03Law Applied

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction, and should ordinarily be exercised exceptionally, particularly where an efficacious alternative remedy—such as an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC—is available; the High Court relied on P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani, 2026 (7) SCC 644, for that principle.

pp. 11–13

The Court nevertheless held that Article 227 may be invoked where necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice arising from abuse of process or re-litigation, which it considered grounds not available under Order VII Rule 11.

p. 15

The Court also referred to Order XXI Rule 102 CPC in recounting the reasoning in the earlier writ proceedings concerning transferees from a judgment-debtor after institution of the suit.

pp. 8–9

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that Article 227 is ordinarily not a substitute for remedies provided by the CPC, but considered this case exceptional.

pp. 11–13, 15

It found that the plaintiff claimed through the same settlement deed and subsequent sale deeds that formed the basis of the other purchaser’s claim, and therefore rejected the contention that the suit concerned a different property.

pp. 13–16

The Court further relied on the prior eviction litigation and the findings in the related writ proceedings, and concluded that the plaintiff had concealed material proceedings and that the suit sought to perpetuate an illegality and amounted to abuse of process and re-litigation.

pp. 10–15