STONE MARVEL FOUNDATION Vs. P SEETHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No,82 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur.

(2.) THE petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are plaintiffs in the suit. THE plaintiffs are the daughters of one late Amaravathiammal. THEir ancestors were enjoying and possessing vast land at Madhavaram Village. One Seenupillai was jointly possessing patta land in Survey No.1471/3 about 3.80 acres along with co-patta holders Murugappa Naicker and Govinda Naicker. THEreafter, the said patta holders had made partition among themselves leaving 1.07 acres to the said Seenupillai. Subsequently, Seenupillai, who is the plaintiff's ancestral, effected partition among their family members. As such, the plaintiff's family members were holding and possessing 0.56 cents in Survey No.1471/13 and the plaintiff's mother inherited her rights of 0.56 cents land in the said survey number. THE third petitioner/third defendant effected transfer of deeds from his share to his family members, viz., Deivasigamani, P.Thirupurasundari and the said third petitioner/third defendant viz., C.Subramani, obtained joint patta from the Tahsildar in their favour including the plaintiff's family land about 0.56 cents. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff's mother made appeal to R.D.O. Ponneri to cancel the joint patta issued in favour of the above said persons. In the mean time, the third petitioner/third defendant along with his joint owners filed a suit for bare permanent injunction against the plaintiff's late mother Amaravathi and her late husband Kaniappa Pillai in O.S.No,325 of 1983 before the District Munsif, Ponneri and the same was decreed in their favour. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred first appeal in A.S.No,56 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Thiruvallur, which was also decreed in favour of them. Aggrieved by that order, a second appeal in S.A.No,262 of 1993 has been filed, in which, this Court set aside the finding of the lower Court by directing the parties to work out their remedy in the new suit to be filed. In the mean time, the third petitioner herein/third defendant made a settlement in favour of his wife, the fourth petitioner herein. During the pendency of the said second appeal, the fourth petitioner herein transferred the property by sale deed in favour of the second petitioner herein. THE said second petitioner entered into joint development agreement with the first petitioner. THErefore, the first petitioner herein put up the board at suit property for joint development. THE respondents-plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 03.03.2009 to the petitioners. THErefore, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No,82 of 2009 praying for mandatory injunction against the first petitioner herein or their officials by directing them from removing their name-board displayed at suit property more fully described in schedule and for permanent injunction against the above mentioned petitioners 1 and 2 or their agents or their assignors restraining them from making any development or entering into any sort of agreement with any third parties relating to the suit property more fully described in the schedule and for costs. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs also filed I.A.No,235 of 2009 in O.S.No,82 of 2009 praying for interim injunction. THE petitioners/defendants also filed counter stating that the petition is devoid of merits and the same has to be dismissed. THE petitioners/defendants have now filed the present civil revision petition contending that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is abuse of process of law and also vexatious litigation and therefore, the plaint in O.S.No,82 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur should be struck off.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.