Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4505
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.VIMALA, J.
Palani Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani
Swamy Thirukkoil represented by its
Deputy Commissioner / Joint Commissioner /
Executive Officer, Adivaram,
Palani - Petitioner
Vs.
G. Ragavan and others – Plaintiffs
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.418 of 2014, O.S.No.345/2014
Decided On : 17.12.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr.K.Govindarajan
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Section 78 – Transfer of the suit – Injunction – Petitioner herein is the first defendant in O.S. on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani, seeking transfer of the suit in O.S. from the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani, to the file of the any other Subordinate Court at Dindigul – Plaintiffs in O.S. filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner, fourth and fifth respondents herein (D-1 to D-3), from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, till they are evicted by due process of law, by following the principles of natural justice – The injunction was sought for on the ground that they are the lessees of the property belonging to defendants 1 to 3. – Held, When the prima facie case of the plaintiffs itself discloses that the action taken is legal and absolutely there is no scope to show that there is violation of legal process, the Court ought not to have granted an order of status-quo – Court, taking note of the fact that the intention of the defendants was not to use illegal methods, has given a direction not in the sense of exercising its authority, but has given a guidance to the lower Court to dispose of the suit based upon the averments made in Paragraph-10 of the written statement. – Court below refused to understand the real issues involved and it has chosen to adjourn the matter without any necessity. – Therefore, the first defendant had been put under compulsion to file this Transfer CMP. – Court has been driven to the necessity of invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while disposing of this Transfer CMP. – This is a case where the maxim res ipsa loquitur can be applied. – The way in which the Trial Court has handled the suit is a clear indication of non-application of mind by the Court below. – Therefore, it is not necessary to order transfer. – When the Trial Court did not obey the orders of this Court, and when the facts clearly show that the suit itself is not maintainable or the suit itself can be disposed of based upon the undertaking given by the defendants, it is not necessary to order transfer. – Court felt that it is a case where the plaint should be ordered to be rejected, but without notice to the respondents it may not be advisable to take such a drastic step. – Therefore, the plaint is not ordered to be rejected. – But, suit in O.S.No.345 of 2014 is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, while recording the undertaking that the defendants will not evict the plaintiffs without following the due process of law. – Tr.CMP Disposed of.
The petitioner herein is the first defendant in O.S.No.345 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani, seeking transfer of the suit in O.S.No.345 of 2014 from the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani, to the file of the any other Subordinate Court at Dindigul.
2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.345 of 2014 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner, fourth and fifth respondents herein (D-1 to D-3), from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, till they are evicted by due process of law, by following the principles of natural justice. The injunction was sought for on the ground that they are the lessees of the property belonging to defendants 1 to 3.
3. The injunction is sought for with reference to property, i.e., Shop Nos.1 to 3, situate at Palani Taluk, Palani Town, Adivaram, Municipal Ward 20, Block 3 in T.S.Nos.880 and 881, measuring an extent of 16 ft. x 16 ft., including front vacant site measuring an extent of 41 ft. x 11 ft., belongs to the petitioner / temple. The lease was for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2012.
4. The petitioner / temple has issued a notice dated 08.08.2014 informing that the tenancy has come to an end by efflux of time; and thus the plaintiffs had to render back possession and in case of failure, the temple administration may initiate proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (?Act? in short). Despite this legal notice, the tenants have rushed to the Court seeking an order of injunction.
5. The Court below, while passing an order in I.A.No.522 of 2014, has referred to the notice (referred to supra) issued by the first defendant dated 08.08.2014 and despite deriving knowledge that the petitioner herein intended to take action only in accordance with law, has chosen to observe that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and directed that the status-quo to be maintained, i.e., the possession of the suit property should continue to be with the plaintiffs.
6. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement stating that the defendants have no inclination to take possession except following the due process of law. Immediately, on seeing this statement, the Court below should have either dismissed the suit recording the undertaking. But that has not been done.
7. Therefore, the first defendant filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP (MD) No.2196 of 2014, seeking a direction to expedite the disposal of the injunction application in I.A.No.522 of 2014 in O.S.No.345 of 2014.
7.1. Before this Court also, the first defendant reiterated the stand that the defendants are not inclined to take possession, except by due process of law. Hence, this Court directed the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.345 of 2014 along with I.A.No.522 of 2014, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, especially taking into account the averments stated in Paragraph-10 of the written statement.
7.2. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph 10 of the written statement, which reads thus:-
10. This defendant is a responsible institution and its day to day activities are being governed and carried out as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. This defendant is hereby categorically states that they have no inclination to take possession over the suit properties except by due process of law. As specially stated in the impugned notice dated 08.08.2014 it has been categorically and in unequal terms has been made very clear that the plaintiffs herein were given an opportunity to vacate the suit properties and render the possession failing which this defendants will resort to the proceedings as contemplated in Sec.78 and 79 of the Tamil nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959.?
7.3. This order passed by this Court has
