Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
N. Natarajan – Appellant
Versus
The Executive Officer, Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 479 of 2012 & M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012
Decided On : 30-03-2015
Civil Procedure Code - Section 107 - Order 41 - Rule 27 - Permanent injunction - Peaceful possession and enjoyment of property – Quash of order - Suit property is comprised in old survey - Total extent of suit property and same has been described as two pieces of land measuring respectively - According to plaintiff a Society known as Commercial Printing Employees Cooperative Industrial Housing Society Limited formed a layout in Village - Same was approved by competent authority - Suit property measuring As per said layout on the north of said property there lies a vacant land measuring - Which is second piece of land described as suit property. This as per approved layout was earmarked as a road – Admittedly plaintiff is the absolute owner of Plot - Portion measuring situated on north of Plot which was originally earmarked as a road running east to west was not dedicated to the respondent Town by Society – Held, In court considered view in such circumstances power of this Court could be found in Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - Regarding scope of power of this Court under Section 151 of C.P.C court of the view that need not delve more since a Constitution Bench of Honble Supreme Court reported in has held that the inherent jurisdiction of Court to make order ex debit justified is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 of Code but jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code - Further, when the Code itself recognizes the existence of the inherent power of the Court, there is no question of implying any powers outside the limits of the Code - Thus, there is no prohibition for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to issue a direction to forward a complaint to the police - Above all forgery is a fraud and so power of the Court to unearth the fraud and to bring to book the culprits shall find no barriers - If the inherent power of this Court under Section 151 could not be exercised to such a situation phrase ends of justice as enumerated in Section 151 will not serve its purpose – Therefore court hold that to meet ends of justice it is absolutely necessary for this Court to issue a direction to make a complaint to the police - In this regard court may also state that in general whenever a criminal case is registered by the police alleging offence of forgery accused rushes to this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the F.I.R. alleging that the issue is before a Civil Court and that no decision has been arrived at by the Civil Court as to whether the document is a forged one or not - Many a times it happens High Court holds that the dispute is civil in nature and quashes F.I.R. Thus comes to an end the criminal case - Before the Civil Court when the matter finally comes up for consideration it generally happens that the Court simply gives a finding that the document is a forged one and thereafter no further action is taken against the offender. Ultimately the offender thus, escapes, from the clutches of law and goes scot-free - In court view this is because of the reluctance of Civil Courts to issue a direction to police to register a case of forgery or in appropriate cases to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Therefore it has become necessary for this Court to clarify that in appropriate cases Civil Court has got power to issue a direction to a party or to a witness to forward a complaint to the police - This measure alone shall send an appropriate message to intending wrong doers so that fraud and forgery could be curtailed - Appeal is allowed
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram is the appellant herein. The respondent is the defendant in the suit. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. By decree and judgment dated 29.07.2005, the learned District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.32 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram. By decree and judgment dated 30.08.2011, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this second appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:
(i) The suit property is comprised in old survey No.189/1 and 190/2A (re-survey No.189/1J) at Chitlapakkam Village in Tambaram Taluk. The total extent of the suit property is 2433 sq.ft. and the same has been described as two pieces of land measuring 1433 sq.ft. and 1000 sq.ft. respectively.
(ii) According to the plaintiff, a Society known as the "Commercial Printing Employees Cooperative Industrial Housing Society Limited" formed a layout in S.No.189/1 and 190/2A in Chitlapakkam Village. The same was approved by the competent authority in LPN DTP No.100/51. The suit property measuring 1433 sq.ft. is plot No.28. As per the said layout on the north of the said property, there lies a vacant land measuring 1000 sq.ft. which is the second piece of land described as the suit property. This 1000 sq.ft. land, as per the approved layout was earmarked as a road.
(iii) Admittedly, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Plot No.28 measuring 1433 sq.ft. The portion measuring 1000 sq.ft. situated on the north of Plot No.28, which was originally earmarked as a road running east to west, was not dedicated to the respondent Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat by the Society.
(iv) According to the plaintiff one Mr. Narayanaswamy was the owner of the Plot No.28 as well as the 1000 sq.ft. of land situated on the north of the same. He executed a settlement deed on 06.03.1991, thereby settling the Plot No.28 as well as 1000 sq.ft. of land in favour of one Mrs. Rajeswari. Mrs. Rajeswari in-turn settled both the properties in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered settlement deed dated 13.03.1996 (Ex.A1). By virtue of the said document, according to the plaintiff, he has become the absolute owner of Plot No.28 as well as 1000 sq.ft of land. Thus, the plaintiff claims title for both the properties.
(v) It is his further case that he has raised compound walls on all four sides covering both the properties. He has also raised coconut trees on the vacant land measuring 1000 sq.ft. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he is in possession and enjoyment of the total extent of 2433 sq.ft. including 1000 sq.ft. of land. It is his further case that the defendant has got no right whatsoever to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
(vi) According to the plaintiff, at the instigation of the local Panchayat Councilor an attempt was made to disturb his possession and hence he was forced to file this suit.
3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is admitted that the "Commercial Printing Employees Cooperative Industrial Housing Society Limited" formed an approved layout in LPN DTP No.100/51 at S.No.189/1 and 190/2A in Chitlapakkam Village. It is also admitted that Plot No.28 measuring an extent of 1433 sq.ft. belongs to the plaintiff. But the 1000 sq.ft. of land which is situated on the north of Plot No.28 has been earmarked as road as per the approved layout. The defendant, being the custodian of the road, has got every right to maintain the same. The plaintiff has got no right whatsoever over the same and he is not in the possession of the said property measuring
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
