KRISHNAMMAL Vs. VENKATRAYALU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This civil revision petition is filed seeking to strike off of the plaint in O.S.No,414 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar.)This civil revision petition is filed seeking to strike off of the plaint in O.S.No,414 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar.

(2.) THE nutshell facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, as stood exposited from the records as well as the submissions made on both sides, could succinctly and precisely, tersely and briefly be set out thus:According to the learned counsel for the first revision petitioner/defendant-Krishnammal, she filed the suit O.S.No,615 of 1967 before the District Munsif Court, Arni, for declaration, possession and injunction relating to the same suit property involved in the present suit O.S.No,414 of 2008 pending before the District Munsif Court, Cheyyar. THE District Munsif Court, Arni, decreed the suit as prayed for. Whereupon the respondents/plaintiffs' father preferred an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed, as against which there was no second appeal. THE said Krishnammal executed the decree in O.S.No,615 of 1967 and obtained delivery of possession of the suit property, which was recorded on 26.10.1973. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs' father Devarajulu Naidu, filed one another suit O.S.No,297 of 1973 seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession and he also filed C.M.A.No,9 of 1974 as against the recording of delivery on 26.10.1973 by the District Munsif Court, Arni. THE said suit as well as the C.M.A. was dismissed. Whereupon Devarajulu Naidu filed appeal as against the dismissal of his suit O.S.No,297 of 1973. Pending such appeal, he died and hence, his LRs, namely, the respondents/plaintiffs got themselves impleaded, however the said appeal was dismissed. THEreafter, they filed S.A.No,288 of 1983, which also was dismissed on 23.2.1996. THE respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No,330 of 1996 before the Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar, seeking injunction, but the same was dismissed on 12.9.2005. It is also a fact that when Krishnammal took steps and got patta changed in her name, the respondents/plaintiffs, challenging the same, filed the suit O.S.No.137 of 1997 before the Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar. But the said suit was dismissed. THEreafter, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the present suit O.S.No,414 of 2008 seeking injunction in respect of same suit property.

(3.) THERE are lot of facts involved based on documents and several judgments also emerged in respect of the dispute, which emerged between the two groups and as such, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot be justified in simply rejecting the plaint at the threshold itself.