Judgment 1. Challenge is made in this memorandum of second appeal to the judgment and decree, dated 26.4.2002 and made in A.S.No.13 of 2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri reversing the judgment and decree, dated 12.9.2000 and made in O.S.No.331 of 1990 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ponneri. 2. The appellants 1 to 7 are the plaintiffs 2 to 8 in the suit in O.S.No.331 of 1990. The respondents herein are the defendants 1 to 3. 3. Originally, the suit was filed by the appellants along with one Rajamani Ammal being the first plaintiff. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the said Rajamani Ammal had passed away. Therefore, the remaining plaintiffs 2 to 8 have been recognised as the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. 5. The suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain them or anybody on their behalf from attempting to interfere with their possession of the suit property by trying to put up a structure or otherwise and also for costs. 6. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The learned trial Judge, viz., the District Munsif, Ponneri had originally granted the decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, which was in appeal reversed by the learned First Appellate Judge, viz., Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, and thereby he had dismissed the suit after setting aside the judgment and decree on the ground that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as the present suit was affected by the earlier judgment of this Court (High Court, Madras) and made in S.A.No.1422 of 1983, dated 7.11.1986. 7. Impugning the correctness of the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, dated 26.4.2002, the plaintiffs have chosen to prefer this second appeal after invoking the provisions of Order 42 Rule 1 read with Section 100 of C.P.C. 8. For easy reference and for the sake of convenience, the appellants may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs whereas the respondents be referred to as the defendants wherever the context so require. 9. The second appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- a. Whether natham site will vest with the Government under Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act? 9. The second appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- a. Whether natham site will vest with the Government under Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act? b. Whether Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the question of title in spite of entries and proceedings under Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act? c. Was the appellate court correct in not granting decree for injunction as claimed by the claimant? 10. This Court, after going through the substantial questions of law formulated as above finds that the substantial question of law No.3 assume more importance rather than the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2. 11. The reason why is that with reference to the finding of the learned first appellate Judge based on the documents under Ex.B.3, this Court is of view, at the first instance, that the suit itself is not at all maintainable because the subject matter which is in issue in this second appeal has already been decided in the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 1981 by the learned District Munsif, Ponneri on 13.10.1982 after full-fledged trial which was ended in dismissal rejecting the prayer of permanent injunction claimed by the plaintiff therein. 12. The judgment and decree of the trial court, dated 13.10.1982 and made in O.S.No.1106 of 1981 was confirmed by the first appellate court, viz., Sub Court , Tiruvallur on 5.7.1983 in the first appeal in A.S.No.89 of 1982 which was also confirmed by this Court (High Court, Madras) in the second appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983, dated 7.11.1986. 13. It is pertinent to note here that the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 1981 was one Elumalai, who appears to have filed the above said suit in respect of the property as described in the plaint in O.S.No.1106 of 1981, which has been described as under:- “Site and also here in Chingalpattu District, Ponneri Taluk, Chinna Eachankuzhi Edayanchavadi Village bounded on the East of Krishnaswamy's site, North of Murugappa Reddy's patta land, South of Thyagarajasamy manyam and West of Govinda Tambirar's land, Gramanatham extent 0.98 cents in S.No.12/1 Gramanatham Paimash 24/3 within Registration District, Ponneri.” 14. In that suit, the plaintiff Elumalai therein had claimed that the suit property was purchased by his mother one Andalammal under a registered sale deed, dated 12.4.1980 from one Munusamy Gramani and after purchase she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. 15. After the demise of his mother, he had put up a hut and raised cashurina crops. He had also claimed that he had been enjoying the said property for the past 22 years, i.e., prior to the filing of the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 1981 and since the defendants in the suit, who are also the defendants in the present suit, had been making an attempt to interfere with his possession, he was constrained to file the above suit for permanent injunction. 16. He had also claimed that the defendants being the Collector, Chengalpattu District and the Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk had issued B-memos on payment of necessary charges in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, he was entitled to be in possession. 17. While confirming the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the first appellate court, Srinivasan, J., dismissed the appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983 on 7.11.1986 with an observation as under:- “4. I find that the description of the property found in Ex.A.1 which is the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's mother is different from the description of property found in the plaint. While the sale deed gives the Pymash number as 2418 and the extent of the property as 69 cents, the plaint gives the pymash number as 2413 and the extent of the property as 98 cents. Of course, the boundaries are the same. But, there is no explanation by the plaintiff for the discrepancies found in the descriptions. Exs.B.2 and B.3 show that the land was taken possession by the Government by evicting the plaintiff and handed over to the School Committee for construction of building. The plaintiff states in his evidence that he had been receiving B Memos every year. But, no B Memo has been filed in Court. The only document filed in support of the plaintiff's case consist of the sale deed referred to above and the notice issued by him besides the postal acknowledgement. They will not be sufficient to establish the claim of the plaintiff to the property. But, no B Memo has been filed in Court. The only document filed in support of the plaintiff's case consist of the sale deed referred to above and the notice issued by him besides the postal acknowledgement. They will not be sufficient to establish the claim of the plaintiff to the property. Though the plaintiff claims that he was entitled to the property as owner, he had himself applied to the Government under Ex.D1 for assignment of the same to him. This is sufficient to show that the ownership rests with the Government and the plaintiff cannot ask for injunction on the basis of his possession, even if he had such possession, as against the true owner, the Government. 5. The dismissal of the suit by the Courts below is confirmed and the second appeal is dismissed." 18. The judgment and decree passed by this Court in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983 has become final and hold good till today as it was not challenged by the defeated plaintiff M. Elumalai. 19. Ex.B1 is the judgment, dated 21.2.1990 and made in O.S.No.249 of 1987 by the learned District Munsif, Ponneri. The plaintiffs in this suit are the children of Elumalai, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 1981. 20. In this suit, it appears that Elumalai has been included as the fourth defendant along with the defendants 1 to 3 being the District Collector, Chengalpattu, the Tahsildar, Ponneri and the President of the School Committee. 21. The plaintiffs in this suit have claimed the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The property which is the subject matter in the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 1981 is also the subject matter in the suit in O.S.No.249 of 1987. 22. While dismissing the suit rejecting the claim of the plaintiff therein, the learned District Munsif therein has made a reference to the observation of Srinivasan, J., made in the second appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983, dated 7.11.1986. 23. On coming to the instant case on hand, this second appeal has been emerged from the suit in O.S.No.331 of 1990, which was originally decreed by the trial Court and subsequently, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed in the first appeal and in consequence thereof, the suit was dismissed. 24. As afore stated, the plaintiffs are the appellants in the second appeal. 24. As afore stated, the plaintiffs are the appellants in the second appeal. The first plaintiff Rajamani Ammal (since deceased) is the widow of one Masilamani Naicker, whereas the remaining plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of the said Masilamani Naicker. 25. Masilamani Naicker is none other than the younger brother of Elumalai, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 1981. 26. As adumbrated supra, Elumalai was defeated in his suit, which was also confirmed by this Court in the second appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983. The children of Elumalai are the plaintiffs in the second suit in O.S.No.249 of 1987, which was also dismissed in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the second appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983, dated 7.11.1986. 27. The suit in O.S.No.331 of 1990 seems to be the third innings by the family of Elumalai, i.e., the widow and children of Elumalai's brother Masilamani. The suit property is one and the same in all the afore-said three suits. In this suit also, the plaintiffs have claimed permanent injunction as against the defendants claiming title and possession through Andalammal as claimed by Elumalai in the previous suit. 28. The first appellate Judge has also made reference to the judgment passed in the suit in O.S.No.249 of 1987, dated 21.2.1990. Only based on the previous judgments, the first appellate Judge has found that having been defeated in his attempt, in the previous suits, Elumalai had instigated the heirs of his brother Masilamani to institute the present suit. 29. It is also found that the plaintiffs in the present suit had not sought the right through Elumalai and ultimately, found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents. 30. On perusal of the evidences available on record, this Court also finds that no document, excepting Ex.B1 alleged title deed has been forthcoming on the part of the plaintiffs. Since the members of Elumalai Family have been continuously and repeatedly filing the suit as argued by the learned Govt. Advocate, it appears to be a sheer abuse of process of court as well as law. 31. Since the members of Elumalai Family have been continuously and repeatedly filing the suit as argued by the learned Govt. Advocate, it appears to be a sheer abuse of process of court as well as law. 31. Further, as afore stated, since the plaintiffs have sought the sole relief of permanent injunction, which was already denied by this Court in the second appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983, this Court finds that the suit itself is not at all maintainable as the previous judgments in S.A.No.1422 of 1983 as well as in O.S.No.249 of 1987 operate as constructive resjudicata. Therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr.N.R. Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants are not able to be countenanced. 32. Apart from this, as decided in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Keshav Ram and others ( AIR 1997 SC 2181 ), in the absence of any satisfactory documentary evidence, it cannot be heard to say that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. 33. In the decision afore cited supra, the Apex Court has held that it is not possible to visualize on what basis the aforesaid direction had been made. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs. To our query as to whether there is any other document on the basis of which the plaintiffs can claim title over the disputed land, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents could not point out any other document apart from the alleged correction made in the register pursuant to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. 34. The land was originally described as pond. What the defendants have contended in their written statement is that the disputed property vested with the Government and subsequently, handed over to the third defendant, viz., High School Authorities of Edayanchavadi Village, Ponneri Taluk, for the construction of school buildings. 35. They have also contended that the plaintiffs' predecessors had no right over the suit property and that the Edayanchavadi Village is an erstwhile village taken over by the Government on 1.10.1951 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.2302 Revenue dated 1.9.1951. The property in S.No.4/1 at Edayanchavadi Village measuring 98 cents has been classified as village site in the settlement accounts. 36. 35. They have also contended that the plaintiffs' predecessors had no right over the suit property and that the Edayanchavadi Village is an erstwhile village taken over by the Government on 1.10.1951 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.2302 Revenue dated 1.9.1951. The property in S.No.4/1 at Edayanchavadi Village measuring 98 cents has been classified as village site in the settlement accounts. 36. They have further contended that Elumalai Naicker, who had encroached the property had been evicted after observing the due formalities and the possession is now with the third defendant, viz., School Authorities, and therefore, neither Masilamani nor Elumalai had any right over the property and the allegations of possession by Murugappa Naicker, who is none other than the father of Elumalai and Masilamani and the sale in favour of Andalammal would not give any right to the plaintiffs to file the present suit for injunction against the defendants. 37. In Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, while penning down the judgment on behalf of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju has observed in paragraphs No.17 and 22 as under:- “17. In this connection we wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.” “22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchauyat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.” 38. As already stated, the present suit is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of court. The Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and others vs. Nirmala Devi and others ( (2011) 8 SCC 249 ) has defined the phraseology, the abuse of Process of Court in the following manner:- 39. Abuse of Process of Court:- Dilatory tactics – Consequent harassment of opposite party, wastage of court's time and benefit to wrongdoer under existing system of administration of civil litigation. Wrongdoer should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation. Prolonging trial by creating obstacles by making frivolous applications or filing forged documents with a motive of avoiding dispossession of unauthorised persons (defendants) from immovable property of plaintiff. Even if wrongdoers are ultimately evicted from property by court after a long lapse of time, they are not generally adequately punished. Thus there is an inherent gain or incentive for wrongdoers under present system which requires to be eliminated. 40. With reference to the steps laid down for trial courts for improving the existing system, the Apex Court has held that the Courts should scrutinise, check and verify the pleadings and documents filed by the parties immediately after filing of the plaint and they should prepare a complete schedule and fix dates for all stages of suit at the time of filing of the plaint. They should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest. 41. Besides this, the Apex Court has also observed that the Court should resolve human or commercial problems involved in the case in accordance with the settled principles of law and justice. 42. They should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest. 41. Besides this, the Apex Court has also observed that the Court should resolve human or commercial problems involved in the case in accordance with the settled principles of law and justice. 42. Keeping in view of the above facts and in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983 as well as the judgment in O.S.No.249 of 1987, the suit is absolutely not maintainable and therefore, the third substantial question of law is answered as against the plaintiffs and in consequence thereof, the first and second substantial questions of law are also answered as against the plaintiffs. 43. Further, this Court is of considered view that the judgment of the first appellate court does not require any interference and the second appeal is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.