Madras High Court
Lalitha vs N.Harihara Krishnan
CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
07.11.2025 23.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 &
C.M.P.(MD).No.14789 of 2025
1.Lalitha
2.Sri Ram
3.S.Hari ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.N.Harihara Krishnan
2.N.Balasubramanian
3.N.Sundararaman
4.M.Sankara Sugumar
5.M.Balachandar
6.M.Ramesh Kumar
7.Thulasi
8.V.Natesan
9.V.Mahalakshmi
10.Lakshmi
11.Savithri
12.R.V.Subramanian
13.V.Natesan
14.Kabila Nathan
15.Sivakameshwai ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025
Constitution of India, against in O.S.No.256 of 2024 on the file of the 1 st
Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram
Sr., Counsel for
Mr.M.Senguvijay
For Respondents: Mr.M.Prabakaran for R6
Mr.B.Ponnupandi for R2
Mr.N.Harihara Krishnan
(Party-in-Person)
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S. No.256 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
2) The background of the case is that the first respondent instituted a suit in O.S. No.256 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, seeking partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of a 1/9th share in respect of the property situated in S.R. No.163/3, Kallidaikurichi Village. The suit schedule property originally belonged 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 to one Natesa Iyer as his self-acquired property. The said Natesa Iyer is the paternal grandfather of petitioners 2 and 3. Natesa Iyer had four sons and five daughters. The first petitioner is the wife, and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children, of Sankara Iyer, who is one of the sons of Natesa Iyer. Respondents 1 to 3 are the sons, and respondents 10 and 11 are the daughters, of Natesa Iyer. Respondents 4 to 6 and 12 to 15 are the grandchildren of Natesa Iyer through his deceased daughters, and respondents 7 to 9 are the great-grandchildren of Natesa Iyer through the son of a deceased daughter. During the lifetime of Natesa Iyer, a partition deed was executed on 08.12.1955 among his sons. The residue properties were settled in favour of his wife, Vishalakshi, under a settlement deed dated 28.12.1955. The sons of Natesa Iyer were thereafter in possession and enjoyment of the properties.
3) After the demise of Natesa Iyer, his daughters and wife relinquished their rights over the properties and business establishments on various dates upon receipt of monetary consideration. Vishalakshi executed a registered Will dated 10.04.1979, bequeathing her properties, including the suit schedule property, in favour of her sons, and she 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 passed away on 28.04.1980. Subsequently, the sons of Natesa Iyer entered into a partition on 25.05.2001 pursuant to the Will, under which the suit schedule property was allotted to Sankara Iyer, the father of petitioners 2 and 3. After the demise of Sankara Iyer, the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The first respondent had earlier filed a suit in O.S. No.3 of 2013 seeking partition of the properties of Natesa Iyer, including the present suit schedule property. The second respondent filed CRP (PD) (MD) No.401 of 2013 seeking to strike off the plaint, wherein a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 11.02.2013, agreeing to relinquish rights over the properties allotted to others. Based on the compromise memo, this Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit by recording the compromise, and the suit was disposed of on 11.03.2013.
4) Thereafter, another suit was filed by a grandson of Natesa Iyer in O.S. No.37 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, against the other legal heirs. The said suit was rejected in I.A. No.42 of 2015 on 06.12.2021. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 present Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S. No.256 of 2024.
5) Heard Mr. J. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Senguvijay, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. N. Hariharakrishnan, party-in-person; Mr. M. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the sixth respondent; and Mr. B. Pomupandi, learned counsel for the second respondent.
6) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaint filed by the first respondent is a gross abuse of the process of law. He submits that the first respondent had already instituted O.S. No.3 of 2013 for partition, wherein the present suit schedule property was included as Schedule–I property, and the said suit was disposed of based on the compromise memo dated 11.02.2013. He submits that the first respondent received a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- from the father of petitioners 2 and 3 and his brothers in full and final settlement, relinquishing his rights over all the properties, including the suit schedule property. He further submits yet another suit in O.S. No.37 of 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 2014 was filed for partition of the same properties, which was rejected on the application filed by the petitioners in I.A. No.42 of 2015 on 06.12.2021, and no appeal has been preferred against the said order. He submits that the first respondent has suppressed the earlier compromise and proceedings while filing the present suit.
7) He further submits that the present suit is barred by limitation, as Natesa Iyer died on 01.02.1965, his wife Vishalakshi died on 28.04.1980, and the partition deed dated 25.05.2001 conclusively allotted the suit schedule property to the father of petitioners 2 and 3. He contends that there is no subsisting cause of action for filing a fresh suit for partition. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgments of this Court in V. Gowrishankar and another v. S. Balakumar and others[2021 (2) CTC 829], M. Venkatachalam v. Karunkarapandian and another [2022 (6) CTC 339], and A.V.S. Balasubramanian v. Kolanji @ C. Chandramohan and another [2025 (4) CTC 20], wherein it has been held that re-litigation on the same cause of action amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, he prays for striking off the plaint. 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025
8) Countering the above submissions, the first respondent, appearing as party-in-person, contends that the maintainability of the suit cannot be adjudicated under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that consideration of new evidence under Article 227 of the Constitution would violate the principles of natural justice and that the Revision Court cannot function as an appellate court. In support, he relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel [2022 SCC OnLine SC 29] and Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony [(2022) 8 SCC 633], to contend that the maintainability of a suit cannot be questioned under Article 227.
9) He further submits that the compromise memo suffers from vagueness, does not include the suit schedule property, and that the allegation regarding receipt of Rs.75,00,000/- to relinquish the right is a misrepresentation. He contends that the supervisory court has no jurisdiction to record a compromise under Article 227 and that the CRP in which the compromise memo was recorded was itself not maintainable, rendering all subsequent proceedings non est in law. He further submits that the compromise is void for non-joinder of necessary 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 parties, as the branch managers were not impleaded. He also contends that the Will executed by the mother of the first respondent suffers from legal infirmities and that without probate of the Will, the partition among the siblings is invalid. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
10) The learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that the sixth respondent is the grandson of late Natesa Iyer, through his deceased daughter’s son, and is the proposed plaintiff in the suit. He submits that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his grandmother, Vishalakshi. He contends that upon her demise intestate, the sixth respondent is entitled to a share in the said property. He further contends that the alleged Will said to have been executed by Vishalakshi is neither genuine nor valid, and that it is a fabricated document which has not been duly proved or probated in accordance with law. He submits that any partition effected in respect of the properties of Vishalakshi among certain legal heirs without title is void and unenforceable.
11) He further submits that the alleged partition would not bind the 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 sixth respondent, as he was not impleaded as a party thereto. He also contends that the previous Civil Revision Petition seeking to reject the plaint is itself not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and in support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Valarmathi and others v. K. Kumaresan, reported in 2025 INSC 606. He submits that when the civil revision petition itself is not maintainable then the order passed in the said petition based on the compromise memo, will not bind the parties as it is non-est. He further submits that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Vishalakshi and that no relinquishment deed has been executed by any of the legal heirs in respect of the said property. He also points out that one of the witnesses to the alleged Will is a petitioner in the present revision petition, which casts serious doubt on the credibility and genuineness of the Will. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
12) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for their respective parties and perused the materials available on record. 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025
13) From a cumulative reading of the pleadings, documents, and submissions made on either side, it is evident that the suit schedule property had already been the subject matter of earlier partition, compromise, and judicial proceedings. The first respondent, having consciously participated in the prior suit for partition and having entered into a compromise relinquishing his rights over the properties, is estopped from re-agitating the very same cause of action by instituting a fresh suit.
14) It is pertinent to advert to the Henderson Principle, which prohibits re-litigation on the same cause of action. The said principle has been comprehensively elucidated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“...144. From the above exposition of law, it is clear that the ‘Henderson Principle’ is a core component of the broader doctrine of abuse of process, aimed at enthusing in the parties a sense of sanctity towards judicial adjudications and determinations. It ensures that litigants are not subjected to repetitive and vexatious legal challenges. At its core, the principle stipulates that all claims and issues that could and should have 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 been raised in an earlier proceeding are barred from being raised in subsequent litigation, except in exceptional circumstances. This rule not only supports the finality of judgments but also underscores the ideals of judicial propriety and fairness.
145. There are, four situations where in second proceedings between the same parties doctrine res judicata as a corollary of the principle of abuse of process may be invoked : (i) cause of action estoppel, where the entirety of a decided cause of action is sought to be relitigated; (ii) issue estoppel or, “decided issue estoppel,” where an issue is sought to be relitigated which has been raised and decided as a fundamental step in arriving at the earlier judicial decision; (iii) extended or constructive res judicata i.e., “unraised issue estoppel,” where an issue is sought to be litigated which could, and should, have been raised in a previous action but was not raised; (iv) a further extension of the aforesaid to points not raised in relation to an issue in the earlier decision, as opposed to issues not raised in relation to the decision itself.
146. As part of the broader rule against abuse of process, the Henderson principle is rooted in the idea of preventing the judicial process from being exploited in any manner that tends to undermine its integrity. This idea of preventing abuse of judicial process is not confined to specific procedure rules, but rather aligned to a broader purport of giving quietus to litigation and finality to judicial decisions. The essence of this 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 rule is that litigation must be conducted in good faith, and parties should not engage in procedural tactics that fragment disputes, prolong litigation, or undermine the outcomes of such litigation. It is not a rigid rule but rather a flexible principle to prevent oppressive, unfair, or detrimental litigation...
...149. Piecemeal litigation where issues are deliberately fragmented across separate proceedings to gain an unfair advantage is in itself a facet of abuse of process of law and would also fall foul of this principle. Merely because one proceeding initiated by a party differs in some aspects from another proceeding or happens to be before a different forum, will not make the subsequent proceeding distinct in nature from the former, if the underlying subject matter or the seminal issues involved remains substantially similar to each other or connected to the earlier subject matter by a certain degree, then such proceeding would tantamount to ‘relitigating’ and the Henderson Principle would be applicable...
...152. The Henderson principle operates on the broader contours of judicial propriety and fairness, ensuring that the judicial system remains an instrument of justice rather than a platform for procedural manipulation. Judicial propriety demands that courts maintain the finality and integrity of their decisions, preventing repeated challenges to settled matters. Once a matter has been adjudicated, it should not be 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 revisited unless exceptional circumstances warrant such reconsideration. Repeated litigation of the same issue not only wastes judicial resources but also subjects the opposing party to unnecessary expense and harassment. judicial processes are not merely technical mechanisms but are rooted in principles of equity and justice..”
15) Applying the aforesaid principles to the case on hand, the suppression of material facts relating to the earlier compromise and dismissal of prior proceedings, coupled with the attempt to reopen settled issues after an inordinate delay, clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of Court. The cause of action pleaded in the present suit is neither subsisting nor legally enforceable, as the rights claimed therein stood extinguished by virtue of earlier partition and compromise.
16) It is further pertinent to note that the previous suit for partition in O.S.No.37 of 2014 was filed by another grandchild and was subsequently rejected. The attempt by the sixth respondent to intervene in the present suit, after sleeping over his rights and not contesting or challenging the earlier proceedings, cannot be permitted. There is no explanation provided as to how he became aware of the status of the suit 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 schedule property. While the sixth respondent contends that the will is not genuine, that partition is invalid, and that he has rights over the property as a grandson, these arguments are unsubstantiated and cannot override the effect of the earlier judicial proceedings. In such circumstances, this Court applies the principle of Vigilantibus non dormientibus, which bars a person from asserting rights that they have neglected to enforce in a timely manner. The sixth respondent cannot, after such inaction, revive claims that have already been extinguished by earlier partition, compromise, and judicial determinations. Permitting him to do so would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
17) In such circumstances, permitting the suit to proceed would only result in subjecting the petitioners to vexatious and unnecessary litigation, which this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, is duty-bound to prevent. Accordingly, the continuation of the suit in O.S.No.256 of 2024 cannot be sustained in law.
From the above observations, this Court allows the civil revision petition and strikes off the plaint in O.S.No.256 of 2024 on the file of the 14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm ) CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. The I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli is directed to take note of this order and terminate the proceedings in O.S.No.256 of 2024 in accordance with law, without proceeding further with the trial. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. No costs.
23.01.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/ No
Pbn
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025
K.KUMARESH BABU,J.
Pbn
To
1.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
2.The 1st Additional District Court, Tirunelveli
Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP(MD). No.2463 of 2025 &
C.M.P.(MD).No.14789 of 2025
23.01.2026
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )