Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
M. Antonysamy – Petitioner
Versus
S. Mumtaj & Others – Respondents
CRP.(NPD)No.3868 of 2017 & CMP.Nos. 18042, 18152 & 19341 of 2017
Decided On : 18-12-2018
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 151 - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1965 - Sections 37(1), 37(2),21(1),21(2), 20(3),20(5) - Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act - Section 14 - Registration Act,1908 - Sections 17 and 23 - Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226(1),227 - Challenge - Quashing of order - Sale Deed - Suit for Partition - Suit for land possession - Suit property measuring acres in Kariampalayam Village Coimbatore District was originally owned by one who had purchased property through a registered Sale Deed - Said and his widow died intestate and brother of widow of namely had succeeded to suit property - After death of in year suit property devolved on his two sons and five daughters whereby two sons were entitled to shares each and five daughters were entitled to each in suit property - Plaintiffs and defendants herein are legal heirs of seven children of aforesaid - Since defendants have not co-operated to have an amicable settlement they have filed present suit in before Additional District Judge Coimbatore seeking for partition of suit properties into equal shares and for separate possession thereof - When suit was pending plaintiffs and defendants had entered into a compromise whereby they had agreed to have suit property partitioned among themselves and thereby entered into a settlement memo evidencing terms of settlement - In Lok Adalat on by District Legal Services Authority Coimbatore settlement memo came to be recorded and an award was also passed - Award was thereafter registered as document before Sub Registrar Mettupalayam - Whether parties to suit had wantonly applied for an Encumbrance Certificate by quoting an old survey number in order to obtain a Nil Encumbrance after year - Whether superior or inferior - It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings - Whether revision petitioner who was not a party to suit can seek for setting aside an award obtained by fraud or misrepresentation whether superior or inferior - Whether such court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial - Whether revenue records relating to properties mentioned in suit and in this writ petition stand either in name of petitioner or in name of defendant in suit against whom petitioner had obtained ex parte decree - Held, In view of specific provision under Section 23 of Registration Act - Further there is no logic in argument if same is tested with reference to various other documents - Secondly this Court is conscious of serious implications by registration of decree or order of Civil Court which is either appealable or has not attained finality - It is also possible for anyone to get a decree from Civil Court either by adopting fraud or collusion - Hence it is always necessary and important that person who seeks to register a decree of Civil Court may be asked to prove that decree has become final and that it is not collusive - In instant case it is brought to notice of this Court that neither petitioner nor defendant in suit has got patta in respect of suit properties - But nevertheless registration of such decree will lead to further complication as same will be shown as an encumbrance in respect of properties which are subject matter of suit - Registration of a decree as in present case will cause serious inconvenience / injury to real owner who is really a third party to suit when he wants to deal with property - Taking advantage of registration of a collusive and fraudulent decree person who has obtained decree may also persuade revenue officials for mutation of revenue records and grant of patta in his favour by resorting to proviso to Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act - In order to protect interest of true owners it is necessary for registering authority to hold an enquiry in case of presentation of a decree or order of Civil Court to ensure that decree or order has reached finality and that decree is not obtained by fraud or collusion - Though registering authority has no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry as to real character of decree it is possible for him to require production of minimum documents and affidavit from concerned party so as to enable registering authority to proceed further for cancellation when it is brought to his notice that statements on oath made by party in affidavit and presented before registration officer at time of presentation of decree or order of Court is false - In view of fraud played by respondents by abusing process of law and causing serious prejudice to petitioner herein these respondents have not only attempted to grab valuable lands illegally but had also havoc on petitioners valuable land and put him under threat of losing his lands - Such illegal and nefarious acts requires to be dealt seriously and strictly and therefore in opinion of this Court an exemplary costs of lakh can be imposed on these respondents - Civil Revision Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitionfiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 10.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.135 of 2016 by the respondent No.41/Lok Adalat and consequently, direct the respondent No.42 to remove/delete the entry dated 09.02.2017 registered on its file as Doc.No.844/2017.)
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the award dated 10.09.2016 passed in the Lok Adalat recording the compromise entered into between the parties to the suit in O.S.No.135 of 2016 and consequently, directing the Sub Registrar, Mettupalayam to delete the entry in the revenue records evidencing the Lok Adalat award.
2. The brief facts of the case as evidenced in the pleadings are as follows:
(a) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property measuring 8.28 acres in S.F.No.39 in Kariampalayam Village, Coimbatore District was originally owned by one Syed Kasim Ali, who had purchased the property through a registered Sale Deed dated 14.09.1893. The said Syed Kasim Ali and his widow died intestate and the brother of the widow of Syed Kasim Ali namely, Sheik Yusuff, had succeeded to the suit property. After the death of Sheik Yusuff in the year 1954, the suit property devolved on his two sons and five daughters, whereby, the two sons were entitled to 2/9th shares each and the five daughters were entitled to 1/9th each in the suit property. The plaintiffs and the defendants herein are the legal heirs of the seven children of the aforesaid Sheik Yusuff. Since the defendants have not co-operated to have an amicable settlement, they have filed the present suit in O.S.No.135 of 2016 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, seeking for partition of the suit properties into 9 equal shares and for separate possession thereof.
(b) When the suit was pending, the plaintiffs and the defendants had entered into a compromise, whereby, they had agreed to have the suit property partitioned among themselves and thereby entered into a settlement memo evidencing the terms of the settlement. In the Lok Adalat held on 10.09.2016 by the District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore, the settlement memo came to be recorded and an award was also passed. The award was thereafter registered as document No.844 of 2017 before the Sub Registrar, Mettupalayam.
3. Heard Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Lourdu Savio, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 35.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire suit as well as the subsequent terms entered between the parties was a gross abuse of process of law, since there was collusion between the parties. According to him, the suit property, though was originally owned by Syed Kasim Ali in the year 1893, had been properly and legally conveyed to various persons through registered conveyances and by a Sale Deed dated 21.11.2012, the respondents 30 to 50 herein had lastly executed a Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner herein for a valid sale consideration. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the plaintiffs had suppressed all the encumbrances that took place in the suit property after 1893 and by colluding with the defendants, had obtained an award before the Lok Adalat. Such an act of suppression and collusion in order to deprive the petitioner herein from his title over the suit properties, amounts to playing fraud on the Court and also a gross abuse of process of law. As such, he would rely upon various decisions of this Court and prayed for setting aside the award of the Lok Adalat.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 35 submitted that there was neither abuse of process of law or fraud played by the parties and that the suit property originally belong to Syed Kasim Ali in the year 1893 and thereafter had devolved on his legal heirs in which the plaintiffs as well as these defendants
SupremeToday
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
