Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4927
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
Rarandhimangalam Panchayat Rep. By its President, Nagapattinam District
Versus
Thiagarajan
C.R.P.(PD) No.1643 of 2008
Decided On : 18-11-2009
For the Petitioner:M.G.R. Prasanna for M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondent:T.R. Rajagopal, Senior counsel for D. Anandaraja, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties classified as Samudhayam well are to be held and owned by the Government in trust for the public, and trespassers' and unlawful possession cannot be protected by the court.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - 1997(2) M.L.J. 584, 2000(3) L.W.521 - The court discussed the interpretation of the 'A' Register and the classification of properties as Samudhayam well, emphasizing that properties of this nature are to be held and owned by the Government in trust for the public. The court also highlighted that trespassers' and unlawful possession cannot be protected by the court, as judicial procedure cannot be used to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, alleging interference with his possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the interim injunction application, concluding that the suit property was a Village Community land. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision and granted interim injunction, leading to the defendant's Civil Revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's prima facie conclusion that the suit land was a Village Community land was not illegal or perverse. It held that the Lower Appellate Court erred in re-evaluating the documents and reversing the trial court's findings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent had a prima facie case to obtain an order of interim injunction, based on the classification of the suit property as a Village Community land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the 'A' Register and the classification of properties as Samudhayam well. It emphasized that properties of this nature are to be held and owned by the Government in trust for the public. The court also highlighted that trespassers' and unlawful possession cannot be protected by the court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Civil Revision petition, setting aside the Lower Appellate Court's order granting interim injunction.
The petitioner is challenging the Judgment dated 01.04.2008 made in C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Nagapattinam reversing the order dt.2. 2008 made in I.A.No.550 of 2007 in O.S.No.355 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam.
2. The defendant in O.S.No.355 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam is the revision petitioner before this Court. They are aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court, namely Sub Court, Nagapattinam allowing C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein and thereby granting an order of interim injunction till the disposal of the original suit.
.3. The brief facts are as follows:
.The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.355 of 2007 for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/ defendant from in any manner interfering with the respondent/ plaintiffs possession of the suit property.
.4. According to the respondent/plaintiff, he purchased the suit property by two sale deeds dated 1. 2004 and 13. 2004 for a valuable consideration and took possession of the properties. He repaired the property and reconstructed the fences. He also cultivated banana trees, coconut trees, etc. on the suit property and he also dug up a fish pond wherein fingerlings were let in. The sub division of the survey field was done in the land purchased by him and the land in R.S.No.59/2 was sub divided as R.S.No.59/2B. The defendant/revision petitioner Panchayat was represented by its elected President Thiru Muthukrishnan and he has some enemity towards the respondent/ plaintiff. Therefore, he instigated the revenue authorities to initiate action against him. On 210. 2007, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam and other revenue officials trespassed into the suit schedule property and destroyed the crops like banana trees, etc. and damaged the Oil engine and fish pond. Therefore, the respondent/ plaintiff issued a notice to the revision petitioner/defendant on 210. 2007 for which, a reply was sent by the revision petitioner/defendant on 110. 2007. The case of the revision petitioner/ defendant is that the suit property is a Community property (Grama Samuthayam) which is not correct as per the respondent/ plaintiff. Having failed in their attempt to trespass into the property and dispossess the respondent/plaintiff from the suit schedule property, the revision petitioner/defendant represented by its President again i.e. on 112. 2007 attempted to prevent the plaintiff while he was repairing and re-constructing the fences. However, the respondent/plaintiff was able to ward off this attempt and feared that there would be another attempt to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed the above O.S.No.355 of 2007.
5. Along with the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.550 of 2007 for interim injunction. The revision petitioner/defendant filed a counter abusing the I.A.No.550 of 2007. The trial court by order dated 2. 2008 dismissed I.A.No.550 of 2007 by holding that the suit land is a Community land and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to get an order of injunction.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 2. 2008 in I.A.No.550 of 2007, the respondent/plaintiff filed an Appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 and by order dated 4. 2008, the Lower Appellate Court reversed the order of the trial court and allowed the Appeal granting interim injunction till the disposal of the original suit. Challenging the order of the Lower Appellate Court dated 4. 2008, the defendant in the suit filed the above Civil Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. This Court on 5. 2008 ordered notice of motion and also granted an interim stay which was extended from time to time.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Thiru T.R.Rajagopalan the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. I have also gone through the entire documents availabl
