Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4333
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
N. Saravanan
Versus
Manujothi Ashramam, Head Quarters at Sathya Nagaram & Others
C.R.P.(PD). No. 2959 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided on: 08-12-2014
For the Petitioner:P. Wilson, Senior Counsel, assisted by Dakshayani Reddy for M/s. G. Sankaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, S. Meenakshi Sundaram, (Caveator), Advocate, R2, Died, R3 to R9, Given Up.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issues of limitation, cause of action, and valuation with Court fee payment are mixed questions of law and fact and cannot be decided at the threshold.
Headnote:
Limitation - Suit for declaration - Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 7(1), 9(1), 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 - Sections 40, 25 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act - Suit not barred by limitation - Cause of action exists - Proper valuation and Court fee paid
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a registered Ashramam, filed a suit for declaration that certain sale deeds were void. The sixth defendant filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation, cause of action, and undervaluation.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the issue required consideration of both facts and law. The Court also found that cause of action existed and the suit was properly valued with correct Court fee paid.
Issues: The issues were whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether cause of action existed, and whether the suit was properly valued with correct Court fee paid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the issues of limitation and cause of action required consideration of both facts and law and could not be decided at the threshold. The Court also found that the valuation and Court fee issue was a mixed question of law and fact.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the suit was allowed to proceed. The Court found that the suit was not barred by limitation, cause of action existed, and the suit was properly valued with correct Court fee paid.
1. The petitioner is the sixth defendant in the suit. The said suit was filed by the first respondent herein as plaintiff for declaration that no right, title and interest is conveyed under document No.1705/83, dated 6.5.1983 to defendants 3 to 7 who are the legal heirs of the deceased K.N. Nataraja Iyer and also for declaration that no right, title and interest is conveyed under document No.1704/83, dated 9.5.1983 to the second defendant. Pending the said suit, the sixth defendant filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit is barred by limitation; there was no cause of action for filing the said suit and the suit is under-valued. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the sixth defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit, in short, is as follows:
The plaintiff-Ashramam, registered under the Societies Registration Act, came into being on 19.12.1963. The plaintiff-Ashramam is owning lands measuring an extent of 5.02 cents in S.No.165/2 situated in No.174, Rajakilpakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, by virtue of a deed of settlement, dated 10.7.1973 made in favour of the plaintiff by one Dr. S.C. Jacob. The said deed is irrevocable. Under the said settlement deed, the power of sale was given to the plaintiff only for the purpose of activities and for maintenance of the plaintiff-Ashramam and it should be done in consultation with the President of the plaintiff-Ashramam and its governing body. The Founder-President of the plaintiff-Ashramam, Gurudev R.P. Lawire executed a Power of Attorney constituting Dr. S.C. Jacob as the Power of Attorney, through Power of Attorney Deed, dated 17.10.1973, registered as document No.92/1973. The settlor of the said property as well as the Power of Attorney is one and the same, who is the first defendant. However, the first defendant, without obtaining approval and consultation of the President and the governing body of the plaintiff-Ashramam, had effected two transfers by way of sale deeds, dated 6.5.1983 and 9.5.1983. In the absence of ratification and concurrence of the President and the Board of Management, no title passes on to the purchaser. Since the sale deeds are without the approval, no transfer of interest passes on to the purchaser. The plaintiff continues to deal with the property. On 10.9.1985, a notice was issued on the plaintiff-Ashramam to file a statement under Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and on failure to furnish the same, notice under sub-section (2) and draft statement under Section 9(1) of the said Act were issued on 16.6.1986. Accordingly, the competent authority, by order dated 9.3.1990, determined an extent of 19800 Sq.Ft. of land as excess in respect of S.No.165/2. Final statement under Section 10(1) of the said Act was issued on 24.4.1990 by the competent authority. Accordingly, 500 Sq.Meters was declared to be retained by the Ashramam in S.No.165/2 and excess land declared to an extent of 19800 Sq.Ft. was re-classified as S.No.165/2A. The plaintiff alone took part in all the above proceedings. On 24.2.1989, the Founder-President of the Ashramam, namely R.P.Lawrie died. The purchaser of the land, through sale deeds, dated 6.5.1983 and 9.5.1983 had effected further conveyance on 10.7.1989 and 16.7.1989. Thereafter, the subsequent purchasers, through the abovesaid sale deeds effected further sale on 6.9.1989. After a lapse of six years, the defendants 3 to 7 preferred appeal against the order of the competent authority determining the excess vacant land in S.No.165/2 and the acquisition proceedings of the competent authority was set aside by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai. The defendants 3 to 7 filed W.P.No.17197 of 1998 to direct the authorities to remove the encroachment in S.No.165/2. On 29.6.1999, the said Writ Petition was disposed o
