Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Krishnaveni & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Vijaya – Respondent
Rev. Appl. No. 150 of 2018 in C.R.P. No. 83 of 2018 & CMP. No. 8646 of 2018
Decided On : 04-06-2019
For the Petitioner:R. Balasubramaniam, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of speedy disposal of civil litigation and dismissed the review application as an attempt to protract the proceedings.
Headnote:
Review Application - Property Dispute - O.47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. - [Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C., 2017 (4) CTC 321] - The court discussed the recall of witness under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. and cited a previous case to emphasize the importance of speedy disposal of civil litigation. The court dismissed the review application as it found no error apparent on the face of the record and concluded that the application was an attempt to protract the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with her peaceful possession of a house site. The defendants contested the suit, claiming ownership of a portion of the property and alleging that the settlement deed obtained by the plaintiff was a sham document.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had been delaying the proceedings and attempting to protract the case. It dismissed the review application, stating that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
Issues: The main issue was the ownership and possession of the property, as well as the defendants' attempts to delay the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of speedy disposal of civil litigation and cited a previous case to support its decision to dismiss the review application.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
(Prayer: Review application is filed under O.47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. r/w under section 114 C.P.C. praying to review the findings recorded in the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.R.P.(PD) No.83 of 2018 dated 13.03.2018.)
1. The above Review Application is directed against the order dated 13.03.2018 in C.R.P.No.83 of 2018. The defendants are the review petitioners. It is necessary to briefly allude to the facts of the case for more fully appreciating the review petition now under consideration of this Court.
2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.49 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakonam for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. The suit property is a house site bearing Survey No. 862/17 measuring an extent of 7½ cents (3270 sq.feet) in Thanigai Polur Village of Arakkonam Taluk together with a small hut constructed thereon.
4. The plaintiff had come forward with a case that the property originally belonged to one Kupusamy Naidu, who sold the suit property to the plaintiff’s father M.Subramani under a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1971. From the date of his purchase, the said M.Subramani was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property together with his wife and children without any disturbance or interference from the third parties.
5. After the demise of the said Subramani, his wife Savithirammal and the plaintiff who is his daughter were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Savithirammal had put up a small hut in the suit property and was living there along with the plaintiff.
6. On 12.04.2000, Savithirammal executed a settlement deed settling the suit property in favour of the plaintiff who since then has been possession and enjoyment of the same.
7. The defendants who had no right or title or interest over the suit property had attempted to trespass into the suit property with the help of antisocial elements on 23.04.2000, this attempt was suitably resisted by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is apprehensive that the defendants would once again make an attempt and therefore she is coming forward with the suit in question.
8. The first defendant had filed the written statement which was adopted by the other defendants inter alia contending that out of the property purchased by the plaintiff’s father, 3 ½ cents was sold away by Subramani together with the cart track. They would further contend that the settlement deed which has been obtained by the plaintiff from her mother is a sham and nominal document made with an intent of getting an order of injunction.
9. The defendants would put the facts of the case in perspective by stating that from and out of the 7 ½ cents that was purchased by Subramani, he had sold away an extent of 3 ½ cents together with the cart track to one Periyadesa Pillai of one Thanigai Polur village under a registered sale deed dated 11.05.1981, who inturn had sold only the 3½ cents without selling the cart track to the first and second defendant herein vide registered sale deed dated 1.09.1983. The first defendant had purchased the additional land of the cart track to the extent of 13 feet towards East and West from Periyadesa Pillai and 39 feet towards North South totally measuring 507 sq.ft. under a registered sale deed dated 3.03.2000.
10. The first and second defendant thereafter assigned the right to the cart track to the 3rd defendant under a registered sale deed 1.03.2000. It is the case of the defendants that on the instigation of the neighbours, the plaintiff’s husband one Ravi along with antisocial elements attempted to trespass into the suit property and therefore the first defendant’s husband had lodged a police complaint against the plaintiff’s husband and others before the Arakkonam Police Station and followed it up with a caveat petition against the plaintiff’s mother and oth
