Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2913
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
M/s. Sundar Timber Private Limited, represented by its Director R. Mahendran
Versus
Manakchand Jamad (Died) & Others
C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1362 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 16-08-2013
For the Petitioner:Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Karthick, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, T. Sundaresan, R2 to R4, M/s. P. Krishnan, Advocates.
The court emphasized that the decree for removal of the superstructure was final and conclusive, and the petitioner's independent right over the superstructure was not established, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
Headnote:
Obstruction - Property Dispute - Order 21 Rule 97 CPC - Summary eviction proceedings were initiated by the decree holders against the petitioner, a tenant, seeking removal of obstruction. The court found that the decree holders were entitled to possession of the vacant land after removing the superstructure, and the petitioner's claim as a statutory tenant was not maintainable. The court held that the decree for removal of the superstructure was final and conclusive, and the petitioner's independent right over the superstructure was not established. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, was involved in a property dispute where the decree holders sought removal of obstruction to obtain possession of the property. The petitioner claimed to be a statutory tenant and challenged the eviction proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree holders were entitled to possession of the vacant land after removing the superstructure, and the petitioner's claim as a statutory tenant was not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition against the order passed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. 2. Whether the order of the Court below suffered any infirmity or irregularity warranting interference in the Civil Revision Petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decree for removal of the superstructure was final and conclusive, and the petitioner's independent right over the superstructure was not established. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the connected M.P. was closed. No costs were awarded.
1. The petitioner is the second obstructor / third party in E.P.No. 783 of 1994 in O.S.No. 3023 of 1988 on the file of the 9th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. He is aggrieved against the order passed in E.A.No. 1556 of 1996 in allowing the said application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC by the decree holders.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
Originally the subject matter land belonged to one Venkatapathy Naidu. It was leased to one Meenakshi Ammal for carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Meenakshi Timber and Tiles Depot. The said firm put up a superstructure over the said land. On 15.11.1940 the said Meenakshi Timber and tiles Depot executed a sale deed of the leasehold rights in respect of the land and ownership over the building in favour of one K.Muthuswamy Devar , he being the sole proprietor of the company by name M/s Devar and Company, Timber Merchants. In pursuant to the above said sale deed, a fresh deed was executed on 7.1.1941 in respect of the said land by the said Vankatapathy Naidu, the erstwhile owner of the land in favour of M/s. Devar and Company. On 6.3.1948, the said Venkatapathy died and the ownership of the land devolved upon his legal heirs. The said Muthusamy Devar died on 31.12.1963 and the leasehold interest in respect of the land and ownership of the superstructure devolved upon his legal heirs viz., wife, son and daughter. On 25.11.1983 the legal heirs of Muthusamy Devear entered into a lease deed with one R.Mahendran who was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s.Sundar Lumber Industry. During the year 1988, the petitioner company was incorporated to take over the business of the said M/s.Sunder Lumber Industry. Consequently, the petitioner herein became the successor in interest of the said industry and accordingly the name of M/s. Sunder Timber Pvt Ltd., has been changed to M/s. Sundar Timber and Plyboards Pvt Ltd., with effect from 28.6.2011. The petitioner has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the said building as a tenant under one Raja, the 5th respondent herein (one of the legal heirs of Muthusamy Devar). While so, one Varadappa , the legal heir of late Venkatapathy Naidu sold the land to one Manakchand Jamad and the first respondent herein through a sale deed dated 25.9.1987. The said Manakchand Jamad died on 22.4.2001. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are his legal heirs. The 5th respondent herein is the person under whom the petitioner is occupying the premises as a tenant.
3. During his life time, the said Manakchand Jamad and the first respondent herein jointly filed a suit in O.S.No. 3023 of 1988 on the file of the 12th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras for eviction of the 5th respondent herein from the said property without making the petitioner as a party to the suit, knowing fully well that the petitioner is occupying the premises as a tenant under the 5th respondent. On 27.4.1993, the said suit was decreed and consequently the decree holders filed E.P.No 783 of 1994 for delivery of possession. In the meantime, the 5th respondent herein filed A.S.No. 157 of 1994 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 3023 of 1988. The said appeal was dismissed on 19.2.1996. Further, a second appeal filed by the 5th respondent before this Court in S.A.No. 1447 of 1996 was also dismissed on 23.2.2006. In the meantime, the decree holders filed E.A.No. 1556 of 1996 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC for removal of obstruction by showing the petitioner and the respondents 6 and 7 herein as obstructors. The 5th respondent died on 8.5.2006.
4. Though the petitioner was set exparte in E.A.No. 1556 of 1996, in pursuant to an order passed in E.A.No.2324 of 2010 dated 10.10.2012, the exparte order was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to contest the E.A. on merits. In the meantime, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 6871 of 2011 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai a
