Madras High Court
Pandi vs Ramraj on 11 October, 2018
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Second Appeal(MD) No.1109 of 2009 Pandi ...Appellant / Appellant / Plaintiff Vs 1.Ramraj 2.Kaleeswaran ...Respondents /Respondents / Defendants Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC, to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai in A.S.No.66 of 1999, dated 16.12.2008 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Sivagangai in O.S.No.370 of 1997, dated 28.04.1999. !For Appellant :Mr.M.Rajaraman ^For Respondents :Mr.S.Pugalendhi :JUDGMENT
The appeal had been presented on 10.08.2009. At the time of admission, the appeal was not admitted, but only notice was ordered. Records were also called from the concerned Court. Notice was served on the respondents and learned Counsel for the respondents also entered appearance.
2.The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.370 of 1997 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, seeking relief of declaration of title. It had been stated that the suit property was the ancestral property of the plaintiff. It had also been stated that there are several partitions effected in the family and finally, the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff's father and it was in his possession. After the death of his father in October'1997, the plaintiff inherited the property and has been in possession. Patta was also granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had mutated his name in the revenue records. It was also stated that the defendant had laid a wrongful rival claim over the suit property and consequently, the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title.
3.In the written statement, the defendants had stated that there is a water lane to the south of the Kanmai over the suit property and that water lane leads to the defendant's property. It had been stated that the water lane had been in existence for a number of years. Since the plaintiff destroyed the water lane, a criminal case was also registered against the plaintiff and 7 others. They were convicted and fine was imposed in C.C.No.112 of 1984. It was also stated that subsequently, O.S.No.155 of 1984 had been filed as against the same suit property. This suit was filed by the paternal uncle of the plaintiff against the father of the defendant. That suit was dismissed. As against that, A.S.No.77 of 1988 had been filed. That appeal suit was also dismissed. As against that S.A.No.147 of 1995 was filed. That was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff herein filed a suit against the father of the defendant's, by name, Karuppiah Thevar in O.S.No.216 of 1995. That was also dismissed. As against that, A.S.No.48 of 1997 was filed. That was also dismissed by the District Court. It was therefore, stated that the plaintiff had been indulging relitigation.
4.In AIR 1977 SCC 2421 (T.Arivandandam vs V.Satyapal and another), the Honourable Supreme Court was faced with a litigation, wherein a father had initiated proceedings after facing an order of eviction and later his son filed another suit for the same relief. The Honourable Supreme has held as follows:
?2.Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decree with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive.
5.In this case, the appellant herein is also indulging in relitigation. The facts have been settled and there no substantial questions of law arises. Hence, the second appeal is rejected.
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Sivagangai.
3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..