Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4369
High Court of Judicature at Madras
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Spencer & Company Ltd. Rep. by its Power of Attorney
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
C.S. No. 597 of 2009
Decided On : 15-12-2014
For the Plaintiff:R. Murari, SC for M.S. Sampath, Advocate.
For the Defendant:O.R. Santhanakrishnan, Advocate.
The court clarified the applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, limitation, and Res Judicata in the context of the plaintiff's claim for recovery of possession and damages.
Headnote:
recovery - suit for recovery of possession and damages - City Tenants Protection Act - Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, limitation, Res Judicata - O.S. No. 14544 of 1996, A.S. No. 550 of 2005, C.M.A. No. 188 of 2000, C.R.P. - 4005 of 2001 - the court discussed the applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, limitation, and Res Judicata in the context of the plaintiff's claim for recovery of possession and damages. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was within the period of limitation and that the objections raised by the defendant were not valid. The court also determined the interest rate at 12% from the date of plaint till the date of realization.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation. The defendant resisted the suit on the grounds of maintainability, limitation, and Res Judicata. The court framed issues for trial and examined witnesses and documents presented by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim was within the period of limitation and that the objections raised by the defendant were not valid. The court also determined the interest rate at 12% from the date of plaint till the date of realization.
Issues: The issues framed for trial included the applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, limitation, and Res Judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's claim was within the period of limitation and that the objections raised by the defendant were not valid. The court also determined the interest rate at 12% from the date of plaint till the date of realization.
Final Decision: The plaintiff was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 85,80,566.40ps with interest at 12% from the date of plaint till the date of realization. No order as to costs was made.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
1. Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 85,80,566.40ps. with interest on Rs. 84,53,760/- @ 18% per annum and for costs.
2. The case of the plaintiff, who claims to be the owner of the suit scheduled property, as narrated in the plaint is as follows:-
(a) The suit property was originally let out by the plaintiff to one Caltex India Limited, which was, later on, taken over by the Government of India. Subsequently, the defendant Company stood substituted in the place of Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. and renewed the lease for the period from 01.01.1975 to 31.12.1979 and thereafter, the lease was not renewed. It is stated that as the defendant did not vacate even after the expiry of lease, the plaintiff filed C.S. No. 26 of 1981 on the file of this Court for the relief of recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation of the property. The plaintiff had claimed Rs. 1,05,000/- as damages for the period from 01.6.1980 till 30.9.1980 besides demanding a sum of Rs. 26,250/- per month as future damages till the date of delivery of possession by the defendant. The suit C.S. No. 26 of 1981 was transferred to the City Civil Court and re-numbered as O.S. No. 14544 of 1996.
(b) In the said suit, the defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 16309 of 1997 under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.9.2000 as against which C.M.A. No. 188 of 2000 was filed and the same was also dismissed on 21.12.2000. C.R.P. preferred before this Court against the order in C.M.A. also ended against the defendant. After the said proceedings were over, the suit was taken up for trial and decree in favour of the plaintiff was passed on 16.3.2005 by the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, directing the defendant to hand over possession on or before 16.6.2005 and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as damages. There was also a decree for payment of Rs. 26,250/- per month towards future damages till the handing over of the possession.
(c) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant had filed A.S. No. 550 of 2005 before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Pending appeal, the defendant handed over possession to the plaintiff on 02.4.2007 and hence, the appeal was withdrawn on 11.4.2007. Till the date of withdrawal of the appeal, the defendant had not paid the decree amount and, therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 12.10.2007. The plaintiff quantified the amount to Rs. 84,53,760/- which is the suit claim and also claimed an interest of 18% per annum.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing the written statement contending inter alia that the suit itself was not maintainable and it was barred by limitation. According to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot claim future damages at the rate of Rs. 26,250/- per month from the date of plaint till the date of handing over possession. It was contended by the defendant that there was no assessment done regarding the future damages in C.S. No. 26 of 1981. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim such amount and in any event, the suit is barred by limitation.
4. On the pleadings, this Court, on 14.12.2010, had framed the following issues for trial:-
(i) Is the suit claim barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?
(ii) Is the suit claim barred by limitation?
(iii) Is the suit claim for damages barred by Res Judicata?
(iv) Is to what relief or relief if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
5. One M. Balasubramaniam, Managing Director of M/s. Mangal Tirth Estate Limited, the power agent of the plaintiff M/s. Spencer and Co. Ltd. was examined as P.W.1 and produced Exs. P.1 to P.10, the details of which are as follows:-
S. No. Exhibits Description of Document Dated
1. Ex. P.1 Xerox copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 14544 of 1996
2. Ex. P.2 Xerox copy of the order in C.R.P. No. 4005 of 2001 15.10.2003
3. Ex. P.3 Xerox copy of the Judgment in O.S. No. 14544 of 1996 16.03.2005
4. Ex. P.
