D SINGARAVELU Vs. D SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S.No.215 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, No.I, Cheyyar is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The respondent herein has filed the above suit in O.S.No.215 of 2009 for partition, claiming 1/4th share in the A-Schedule property and = share in the 'B' Schedule property and for injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit property and also from claiming any right over the 'B' Schedule property and for other reliefs. The revision petitioner, who is the first defendant in that suit has filed an application in I.A.No.632 of 2009 under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code seeking for the prayer that the suit filed by the respondent herein is barred by res judicata by reason of the judgment rendered in O.S.Nos.371 and 372 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vandavasi. That application was dismissed by the Lower Court and aggrieved by the same, this Revision is filed by the first defendant viz., the revision petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that in the Suit in O.S.Nos.371 and 372 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vandavasi, the properties involved in O.S.No.215 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar were included and the suit in O.S.No.372 of 2004 was filed by the revision petitioner against the respondent herein and the defendants 2 to 3 in O.S.No.215 of 2009 for injunction, restraining the defendants in that suit not to alienate the suit properties and that suit was decreed as prayed for. He has further submitted that the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.371 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vandavasi, for a permanent injunction, restraining the revision petitioner herein and the second defendant in O.S.No.215 of 2009 restraining them not to interfere and to cut the trees in the suit property and that suit was dismissed and therefore, the present Suit in O.S.No.215 of 2009 is barred by res judicata. Hence, the order of the Lower Court has to be set aside and the revision has to be allowed. He has further submitted that the properties in O.S.No.215 of 2009 are the same properties involved in O.S.No.372 of 2004 filed by the revision petitioner and therefore, the present suit is barred by res adjudicata. He has further submitted that in the suit in O.S.No.372 of 2004, issues were framed regarding the title to the suit property and a finding was given that the revision petitioner herein is also entitled to a share in the suit property and injunction was granted.