Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
S. Marimuthu
Versus
G. Kumaraswamy & Others
C.S. No. 206 of 1996, (O.S. No. 6725/91, City Civil Court, Madras)
Decided On :Decided On : 25-04-1996
Suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs - Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property - Defendants contended that the suit was barred by res judicata, limitation, and maintainability - Court held that the suit was maintainable and that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title over the property as shown in the plan appended to the judgment - Court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property - Court directed the plaintiff to pay compensation to the first defendant for his illegal acts - Court also directed the second defendant to rectify the document by correcting the extent as 1027.9 sq. ft. in the schedule of documents - Court dismissed the relief as against the 4th defendant for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs over a property. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by res judicata, limitation, and maintainability. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable and that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title over the property as shown in the plan appended to the judgment. The court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property. The court directed the plaintiff to pay compensation to the first defendant for his illegal acts. The court also directed the second defendant to rectify the document by correcting the extent as 1027.9 sq. ft. in the schedule of documents. The court dismissed the relief as against the 4th defendant for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by res judicata? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the suit was maintainable? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title over the property? 5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property? 6. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation from the first defendant for his illegal acts? 7. Whether the second defendant was required to rectify the document by correcting the extent as 1027.9 sq. ft. in the schedule of documents? 8. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against the 4th defendant?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was maintainable and that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title over the property as shown in the plan appended to the judgment. The court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property. The court directed the plaintiff to pay compensation to the first defendant for his illegal acts. The court also directed the second defendant to rectify the document by correcting the extent as 1027.9 sq. ft. in the schedule of documents. The court dismissed the relief as against the 4th defendant for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. The court held that the suit was not barred by res judicata or limitation. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Final Decision: The court passed a decree declaring the plaintiff's title over the property as shown in the plan appended to the judgment. The court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property. The court directed the plaintiff to pay compensation to the first defendant for his illegal acts. The court also directed the second defendant to rectify the document by correcting the extent as 1027.9 sq. ft. in the schedule of documents. The court dismissed the relief as against the 4th defendant for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
1. The suit was filed before the City Civil Court, Madras on 5.9.1991 and numbered as O.S. No. 6725 of 1991. It was withdrawn to this Court as per judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 1262 and 1263 of 1994, which are also proceedings between the plaintiff and the first defendant in this case.
2. A total extent of 5 ‘Manais’ and 477 ‘Kulies’ in Survey No. 3814, Teynampet, Madras originally belonged to one Appan, as per sale deed, dated 7.6.1957. The purchaser converted the same into several plots situated on the western and eastern sides of Kamarajar Salai, Madras. A portion of the layout is marked as Ex. A-28 in this case. Ex. A-28 is in respect of Plot Nos. 6, 7 and 8 situated on the western side of Kamarajar Salai. The purchaser sold the entire Plot No. 6 in favour of one Prema under registe red sale deed dated 16.11.1973. He also sold the entire Plot No. 8 on 5.12.1979 as per Ex. A-29 to the first defendant in this case.
3. The subject matter in this suit is Plot No. 7. The same is having a total extent of 1774 sq. ft. Plot No. 7 was sold to second defendant in this case, who is none other than the wife of the first defendant. Ex. A23 is the sale deed in favour of the second defendant. As per the layout which is Ex. A-28, each of Plot Nos. 6, 7 and 8 is having a length of 76.9 lying east west and a width of 23 north south. It is seen that out of plot No. 7, second defendant sold a portion to one Muniammal on 7.3.1974. Plaintiff himself has produced a registration copy of the document and the same was marked as Ex. A-30. The remaining portion is the subject matter of the suit. The second defendant sold the same to Ranganathan on 10.6.1974 as evidenced by Ex. A-1. A plan is also attached to that deed. Ranganathan sold the same to Chempaka Malini on 6.5.1978, evidenced by Ex. A-2. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from Chempaka Malini. Her father is also a party, and the document is dated 4.2.1981 (marked as Ex. A-3). The title of the plaintiff is based on Ex. A-3.
4. Now I will give the circumstances which necessitated the filing of the suit. The first defendant who is the owner of plot No. 8 has his property on the western side of the plaint schedule. He claimed to be in possession of a portion of the plaint schedule property also. It is said that the first defendant was in possession of a portion of the plaint property on the western side, and the plaintiff herein trespassed into that portion on 8.8.1981 and he initiated proceedings under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. He filed O.S. 1584 of 1981 before the City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of possession. After taking evidence, that suit was dismissed, against which he preferred a Revision before this Court as C.R.P. No. 1382 of 1985. The Revision was allowed, and this Court held that the plaintiff is a trespasser and that he has actually committed trespass on 8.8.1981. He was directed to hand over possession to the first defendant, and cost was also allowed. The order of this Court is dated 5.7.1991. It is subsequent to the order in the Civil Revision Petition, the present suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential reliefs. It is averred in the plaint that the plan attached to Ex. A-1 does not correctly state the extent of the property conveyed to Ranganathan and the mistake in the plan was repeated in the subsequent documents including Ex. A-3 purchased by the plaintiff. According to him, in Ex. A-1 plan, the total extent conveyed is noted as 890 sq. ft. whereas it is really 1073 sq. ft. According to him, the recital in the sale deed and the plan are inconsistent and, therefore, it requires rectification. Along with the plaint, he has also produced a rough plan wherein he has noted the measurement which he is entitled to as per Ex. A-3 sale deed. It is further averred that after the purchase, plaintiff started an additional construction on the western side to an extent of 20 ft. 23? ft. excluding a portion as open space. The same was o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
