Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.MALA, J.
Muthuraja and Ors. – Petitioner
Vs.
Lakshminarayana – Respondents
S.A.No.1576 of 2003 and C.M.P.Nos.339 of 2015 and 14553 of 2004
Decided On : 14.07.2015
SUPPRESSION OF FACTS - PROPERTY DISPUTE - ORDER 22 RULE 9 CPC - ORDER 9 RULE 9 CPC - TITLE DOCUMENT - RELIEF OF INJUNCTION
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the defendants, claiming adverse possession of the property. The defendants contended that the suit was barred under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC due to the dismissal of a previous suit by the plaintiff's father and suppression of material facts by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff had not filed the plaint of the previous suit and had given conflicting versions of events, indicating suppression of material facts. The Court held that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands and was not entitled to any relief. The judgment and decree of the lower courts were set aside, and the second appeal was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, suppression of material facts by the plaintiff, and the entitlement to the relief of injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's suppression of material facts and failure to come to the Court with clean hands led to the dismissal of the suit. The Court emphasized that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower courts were set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. There was no order as to costs.
This second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 10.01.2003 in A.S.No.24 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villurpuram confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2001 in O.S.No.306 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet.
2.The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
Originally the property were owned by the plaintiff's grandfather Thiruvengadam Padayachi and he was in enjoyment of the property by paying kist to the Government. After his death, his only son Mannankatti Padayachi, who is the father of the plaintiff has inherited the property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Patta No.177 and UDR Patta No.687 has been issued and he was in possession till his death. He died on 26.11.1993 leaving behind his sons, namely, the plaintiff and his brother Muthu Govinda Venkataraman and three daughters, namely, Kaliammal, Saraswathi and Sivagami. The plaintiff's brother and sisters relinquished their right over the properties in favour of the plaintiff on 12.12.1993. They are enjoying the property for more than 63 years and hence the plaintiff prescribed titled by adverse possession. While so, the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff by denying his title and hence, he was constrained to file a suit for declaration of title and injunction.
3.The gist and essence of written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:
The property in S.No.481/1 to an extent of 1 acre 71 cents originally owned by Krishnasamy Raja and Narayanasamy Raja. They sold 40 cents in favour of the plaintiff's mother Kichaiammal and the remaining extent of 1 acre 31 cents has been sold to one Devaraja and then it was sub-divided into S.No.481/1. Out of that, he sold 60 cents in favour of Kaveriammal, who is none other than the sister of Venkata Perumal Raja on 28.01.1946 under the stated boundaries. The said Kaveriammal died intestate without any issues. So, the defendants got the property. The balance 71 cents has been purchased by the father of the defendants 1 and 2 and husband of the 3rd defendant, namely, Venkata Perumal Raja from the said Devaraja on 17.05.1951. So, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff has no right over the property and the defendants prescribed title by adverse possession. It is further submitted that the father of the plaintiff Mannankatti Padayachi filed O.S.No.221 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirukovilur for declaration and injunction and after that, it was transferred to the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet and re-numbered as O.S.No.161/1995. The said suit was dismissed as abated without impleading the legal heirs of the said Mannankatti Padayachi. Now, the plaintiff has come forward with this suit and so, the suit is mere abuse of court and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit
4.The Learned Trial Judge after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and arguments on either side counsel has framed necessary issues and on perusing the oral and documentary evidence viz., P.W.1 to P.W.3, D.W.1, D.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A22, Exs.B1 to B6, decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram.
5.The learned First Appellate Court has considered the argument advanced on either side and framed necessary point for consideration and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the Decree and Judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 1 and 2.
6.At the time of admission of the above second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration.
"1.Whether the plaintiff's suit was not barred by Order 9 Rul
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
