A.C.MURUGESAN Vs. M.VIJAYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 12.12.2012 made in I.A. No. 253 of 2012 in O.S. No. 6 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

(2.) The petitioner is third defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff, respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 1 and 2 and respondents 4 to 7 are the defendants 4 to 7 in O.S. No. 6 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri. The first respondent filed the said suit for partition, permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2,3 and defendants 8 to 11 from either alienating, encumbering or selling the suit schedule properties to the petitioner and for permanent injunction against the petitioner from trespassing and disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first respondent. The petitioner filed written statement on 02.04.2011 and is contesting the suit. The issues were framed. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 253 of 2012 under Order 14, Rule 2 of C.P.C to take up the preliminary issue of resjudicata as preliminary issue. According to the petitioner, earlier he had filed O.S. No. 464 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, for declaration of title for the very same suit property against the first respondent and others. The first respondent and other defendants made an endorsement in the plaint admitting the title of the petitioner. Based on the endorsement, the decree was passed on 28.01.1993. In the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 5 signed as witnesses. In order to wriggle out of the said sale deeds, the respondents colluded together and first respondent filed the present suit. The parties and properties are one and the same in both the suits and therefore filed the present application to take up the issue of resjudicata as a preliminary issue.

(3.) The first respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments and contended that she did not receive any summons or notice in the earlier suit, O.S. No. 464 of 1992. She did not make any endorsement consenting for decree being passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has gone to the extent of impersonating the first respondent by bringing some other lady and forging the signature of the first respondent and prayed for dismissal of the application.