Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
P. Ravichandran & Another – Appellant
Versus
The President, C.Kothangudi Panchayat, Cuddalore District & Another – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 40 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 09-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:T.R. Rajagopalan, SC for R. Bharath Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, AR.L. Sundaresan, SC for M. Sivavarthanan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Permanent Injunction – Plaintiffs in O.S. on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram, are the appellants herein. – The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. – The said suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and to restrain the defendants from constructing any superstructure on the suit property. – The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 20.06.2011, decreed the suit as prayed for. – As against the same, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. – By decree and judgment dated 18.11.2011, the First Appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. – As against the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court with this second appeal. – Held, Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the plaintiffs may be given liberty to file an appropriate suit for declaration of title and also for other reliefs to use the suit property for a different purpose. – Court have already pointed out, if there is any statutory authority who has got the power to grant such permission for the plaintiffs to use the suit property for a different purpose, then, it is open for the plaintiffs to approach the authorities concerned or to file an appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court. – Court only say that the decree of injunction granted herein will not be an impediment either for the plaintiffs or for the first defendant to work out their remedies in accordance with law and this decree of injunction will not operate as res judicata against the plaintiffs as well as against the first defendant. – Court also make it very clear that the parties are at liberty to work out their remedies as to whether there is proper approval of the lay out; whether the title remains with the plaintiffs or with the first defendant and also to work out as to whether the plaintiffs can approach any authority to use the suit property for different purpose and also for the first defendant to approach the authorities, if any, under the statue, to get permission to use the suit property for a different purpose. – Second Appeal Allowed
1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.245 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram, are the appellants herein. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and to restrain the defendants from constructing any superstructure on the suit property. The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 20.06.2011, decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. By decree and judgment dated 18.11.2011, the First Appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court with this second appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-
The suit property is comprised in S.Nos.97 and 99/1 at C.Kothangudi Village in Chidambaram Taluk. The said property and the properties comprised in various other Survey Numbers like S.Nos.90, 91/1, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99/1, 99/2, 99/4, 101, 103/1B, 103/3, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108/1 and 110/3, were all owned by a Society known as “Raja Muthaiah Mundram”. The said society had formed a lay out on these lands and obtained approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning Authority at Chengalpet by his proceedings in Se.Thema/Na Vu Ilam – 86-187/Ma.Pa.153.
3. According to the plaintiffs, the property comprised in S.No.99/1 (Old Survey Nos.98 and 99) did not form part of 'Muthaiah Nagar' and they form part of 'Rukmani Ammal Nagar' which is situated on the North of Muthaiah Nagar. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the suit property was purchased by them from the then Secretary of the Society by name Mr.Tamilarasan. It is their further case that from the date of purchase, the first plaintiff was in enjoyment and possession of the suit property. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that, Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit properties were purchased by the first plaintiff from Mr.Tamilarasan by means of registered sale deed dated 22.06.2000 and Item No.3 was purchased by Mrs.Kala from Mr.Tamilarasan on 17.04.2000. Thus, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have got no right whatsoever over the same.
4. The first defendant herein filed a written statement before the trial Court stating that the suit property forms part of Muthaiah Nagar and not Rukmani Ammal Nagar. The suit property has been shown as a “Park” for public purpose. According to the first defendant, as per the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the defendant is the custodian of the suit property which has been earmarked as a Park for public purpose. Mr.Tamilarasan, had no right or title to convey to his purchasers namely, the first plaintiff and Mrs.Kala. The above stated society became defunct and therefore, Mr.Tamilarasan the Ex-Secretary of the said society had no right to execute any sale deed in respect of suit property. It is also the case of the defendants that the District Collector has sanctioned a sum of Rs.15 lakhs for the purpose of erecting a bore well and for construction of Over head tank on the suit property for the purpose of providing drinking water facility for the residents of the entire Muthaiah Nagar. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and as many as 33 documents were exhibited. On the side of the defendants, four witnesses were examined and as many as 4 documents were exhibited. Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked as Court documents.
6. Having considered the above, the trial Court decree
