Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
Loom Tex Exports – Appellant
Versus
Thanneer Panthal Dharma Chathiram and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1599 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 08-11-2019
For the Appellant : S. Meenakshi Sundaram, Senior Counsel for M. Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
For the Respondent: P. Thiyagarajan
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII - Rule 11 - Enquiry - Allegations in petition - Petitioners are defendants before Court below - First respondent plaintiff filed suit against defendants claiming for relief of declaration of title mandatory injunction and for delivery of possession - Sum and substance of averments made in suit is to effect that schedule property was originally an land and it was dedicated to plaintiffs as their Darmadayam for support of water panda - Grant was made title Deed and entry was also made in fair register - It was further averred that property had been illegally dealt with and was sold to one Kumar and Kumar they in turn had sold it to petitioners by sale deed and property that has been sold is shown as schedule property - Subsequently petitioners had put up construction in schedule property and they are running their business - This alienation according to plaintiff is without any authority and it goes against very grant that was issued in favor of plaintiff – Held, Present case plaintiff has specifically averred that property has been illegally alienated in favor of defendants and defendants have put up construction and they are running their business in property - For this purpose plaintiff has made averment regarding suit filed and stand taken by defendants in said suit - Defendants have taken further stand in suit claiming themselves to be absolute owners - These averments by itself shows that defendants are not using property which has been burdened with Darmadayam for supporting water panda and defendants are also denying title of plaintiff institution which has been declared to be holder of grant - This is clear from documents along with plaint - Issue as to whether an Executive Officer can represent institution whether Department can appoint an Executive Officer as if institution is religious institution are all matters that are to be agitated in main suit - In considered view of this Court there is tribal issue in this suit since defendants have denied title of plaintiff institution and nature property itself has been changed since defendants have put up construction and are running their business in schedule property which clearly shows that burden that has been attached to property has been violated as per pleadings in plaint - Considered view of this Court reading of plaint along with documents filed clearly make out cause of action in this case and this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in order passed by Court below - All grounds taken by petitioners can be raised before Court below in course of proceedings and same will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law – Petition dismissed
ORDER :
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order passed by the Court below dismissing an application fried under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint.
2. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 8 before the Court below. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants claiming for the relief of declaration of title, mandatory injunction and for delivery of possession. The sum and substance of the averments made in the suit is to the effect that the "A" schedule property was originally an inam land and it was dedicated to the plaintiffs as their Darmadayam for the support of water pandal. The grant was made under title Deed No. 728 and the entry was also made in the inam fair register. It was further averred that the property had been illegally dealt with and was sold to one Ramesh Kumar and Senthil Kumar and they in turn had sold it to the petitioners by sale deed dated 06.07.2005 and the property that has been sold is shown as "B" schedule property. Subsequently, the petitioners had put up a construction in the "B" schedule property and they are running their business. This alienation, according to the plaintiff is without any authority and it goes against the very grant that was issued in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The cause of action for the suit as pleaded in the plaint is extracted as follows:-
"Cause of action for the suit arose on when the suit A schedule property had been granted to the plaintiff's institution for running water pandal and on 01.06.1965 when Ryotwati Patta under Inam Abolition Act 30/1963 had been granted to the plaintiff's institution in respect of the suit A schedule property and on 06.07.2005 when the defendants 1 to 8 are alleged to have purchased the suit B schedule property from Senthilkumar and Rameshkumar and on every subsequent dates when the defendants 1 to 8 have put up constructions in the suit B schedule property and on every subsequent dates when the defendants 1 to 8 obtained patta and patta passbook in their favour from the Revenue Departments and on 11.06.2008 when the 1st defendant has presented letter to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Tiruchirappalli offering to purchase the suit B schedule property and on and from the date when the 9th defendant encroached over the suit C Schedule property and at Punjai Kadambankurichi Village, Karur Taluk where the suit property is situate within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."
4. A written statement was filed by the defendants and the issues were framed and the case was at the stage of trial. At that stage, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., seeking for rejection of plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for maintaining the present suit. The Court below has dismissed the petition on the ground that there are several disputed facts that are required to be decided in the suit and therefore, there is no scope for rejection of the plaint in the present case.
5. Mr. S. Meenakshmi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as per the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, dated 01.06.1965, through which the patta was granted under Inam Abolition Act 30/1963, the nature of grant is Darmadayam for the support of the water pandal. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the grant is given in favour of the bolder burdened with service and it was not absolutely conveyed in favour of the plaintiff.
6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the cause of action in the present case can only arise if the plaintiff alleges that the defendants are not continuing with the Darmadayam. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in order to maintain a suit, there must be some cause of action. He submitted; that there must be some act done by the; defendants which infringes the right of the plaintiff or there is breach of obligation on the part of the
