C T THRIPURASUNDARI Vs. ASIMUNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts disclose the gross abuse of thejudicial process by the petitioner who under the guise of claiming to be the widow of the original tenant has prolonged the litigation for several years, though she suffered a decree in the court of first instance, in the lower appellate court, and also in the High court in Second Appeal No. 162 of 1992 dated 27th December, 1993.

(2.) Few facts are necessary which would explain itself the state of affairs in which the respondents are placed and the predicaments under which this court is placed. The petitioner's husband was a tenant. An eviction petition R.C.C.No.25 of 77 was filed by the husband of the 1st respondent seeking to evict the petitioner's husband on the ground of re-moddeling the superstructure converting into a residential premises and also forpersonal occupation. The petitioner's husband approached the Rent-controller by filing RCC12/77 to permit him to depositthe rent into court, which was allowed and RCC 25/77 filed by the 1 st respondents husband was dismissed, by a common order dated 16-3-1981 holding that what was leased out was only a vacant site.

(3.) The second record of litigation which is a very interesting litigation is brought up again in the year of 1981 by instituting a suit for eviction by the husband of the first respondent in O.S.No.876 of 1981 before the First Additional District Munsiff, Chittoor. In the suit, the defendant therein, is the petitioner herein. The suit was contested on the ground that the Court which entertained the suit had lacked jurisdiction, and also on some other grounds. The suit was decreed. As against decree in OS.No.876of 1981,the matter was carried in appeal before the lower appellate court in A. S.No.62 of 1986 and on contest the first appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, as usual, the matter is carried to this court by way of second appeal in S.A.No.162 of 1992. The appellant who is petitioner in this C.R.P. reiterated the same contentions before this court also, and this court also in the second appeal repelled the contentions and dismissed the second appeal, by order dated 27-12-1993. On the plea of inconvenience, made by the petitioner, this court in a separate order granted some time, enabling the petitioner to vacate the premises and for delivering the vacant possession to the respondents. The time granted by this court also lapsed, but the petitioners who are defendant, did not choose to give vacant possession to the plaintiffs, but however, thought that the matter could be protracted andthusinstitutedyetanotherSuitOS.No.774 of 1994 on the file of the third additional district munsiff, Chittoor. The suit is mainly filed for a declaration that the court which decreed the suit O.S.876 of 81 had lacked jurisdiction, and therefore, sought a declaration that the decree passed by such court which had lacked jurisdiction, in OS.No.876 of 81 as null and void.