Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
D. Gnanasekaran & Ors. - Plaintiffs
Vs.
Viswanathan Ramachandran & Ors. - Defendants
C.S. No. 37 of 2009
Decided On : 03-01-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 448 – Land Acquisition Act – Sections 6, 9, 10 – Specific Relief Act – Section 6 – Possession of suit property – Specific Performance – Suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of the suit property – Held, Defendants have by producing plethora of documentary evidence proved that they are in possession of the property and an attempt to trespass was in fact prevented by them. – The 2nd plaintiff as PW2 would admit that he is close relative of the minister of the State, though, he has denied the suggestion that by misusing the name of the Minister he has obtained E.B connection and telephone connection, such possibility cannot be ruled out. – It is also seen from the evidence of PW2, that he had not got the sale deed executed pursuant to the decree in CS.No.701 of 2008 till date of his deposing in Court. – Though PW2 would admit that he had received title deeds of the property from the 1st plaintiff, he has not produced them and is a pointed question in the cross examination he has stated that those documents are not necessary in this suit. – Therefore, it is clear that the intention of the plaintiffs was to grab the property of the defendants by hook or crook by creating documents. – Though the plaintiffs would claim that the suit property which form part of the land acquired by Chennai Corporation, which was subsequently exempted by a GO, the said Government Order is not produce though it has been referred to in the plaint. – All these infirmities in the case of the plaintiffs lead me to believe that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property, in order to invoke the benefit of Section 6 to regain possession through Court. – The evidence of PW1 and PW2 would itself show that they were never in settled possession in order to invoke Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to seek restoration of possession. – Suit Dismissed
The suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of the suit property.
The claim of the plaintiffs is as follows :
2. The ancestors of the 1st plaintiff had purchased vast extents of lands in Zamin Mambalam and Mylapore Villages in the year 1923. It is claimed that they had acquired the lands in Paimash Nos.669 and 670 in Zamin Mambalam Village. The Madras Corporation had acquired vast extent of lands in Zamin Mambalam Village for development of road and other infrastructural facilities. Certain lands belonging to the ancestors of the 1st plaintiff were also acquired during the said acquisition. According to the plaintiffs, by G.O.Ms.No.735 dated 28.08.1923, certain lands belonging to the ancestors of the 1st plaintiff were excluded from the acquisition. Survey Nos.39 to 76 in Zamin Mambalam Village (Old Survey No.55/3 and 54) were, according to the plaintiffs, excluded from acquisition.
3. It is further claimed that Old Survey No.55/3 was assigned new Survey No.4867 in the year 1956. Subsequently, Old Survey No.55/3 was assigned Survey No.7039/2 of Zamin Mambalam Village. It is the further claim of the plaintiffs that the Northern boundary of the land that belonged to the 1st plaintiff’s ancestors, belonged to the predecessors-in-title of the defendants 1 and 2 herein one Meenambal. The said Meenambal’s land which was originally comprised in Survey No. 7039 and later sub-divided and assigned Survey No.7039/1. The defendants 1 and 2 herein appears to have purchased the properties in Survey No.7039/1 in Zamin Mambalam Villlage of an extent of 2 grounds and odd from the said Meenambal. It is claimed that an extent of 5460 sq.ft. or thereabouts belonged to the family of the 1st plaintiff was comprised in Survey No.7039/2 which has been enjoyed by the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants had nothing to do with the property.
4. They would further plead that the 2nd plaintiff entered into a Registered Agreement of sale with the 1st plaintiff and his family members on 27.11.2006 in respect of the properties situate in Survey No.7039/2. It is claimed that on the date of the agreement the 2nd plaintiff was put in possession of the property. Since the 1st plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the agreement dated 27.11.2006, the 2nd plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance in this Court in C.S.No.701 of 2008 and the same ended in a compromise on 12.09.2008. On 26.11.2006 the 2nd plaintiff had put up a board in the property mentioning about the decree passed in C.S.No.701 of 2008. It is claimed that the 2nd plaintiff removed bushes and cleaned the property and put up a small shed in October 2008. It is also claimed that a security staff was employed by the 2nd plaintiff at his cost through M/s.Faithful Security Services, Chennai. The salaries were also paid by him.
5. It is the further claim of the plaintiffs that the 2nd plaintiff applied for and obtained a landline telephone connection to the shed on 11.11.2008. Electricity service connection was also obtained on 26.11.2008 in the name of the 2nd plaintiff for the said shed. While so, according to the plaintiffs, on 16.12.2008, the 2nd defendant visited the property and quarreled with the security personnel deployed by the 2nd plaintiff. He also lodged a police complaint before R4-Pondy Bazaar Police Station. It is claimed that the 2nd defendant had lodged a police complaint with a wrong description of the property and laid claim for the present suit.
6. It is also contended that the 3rd defendant, who as a higher police officer in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of police took personal interest in the complaint lodged by the 2nd defendant and by stepping into the shoes of the Station House Officer, registered a case against the 2nd plaintiff under Section 448 of I.P.C. It appears that the 2nd plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 before the City Civil Court on 17.12.2008 itself and notice wa
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
