Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The Tahsildar Aminjikarai Taluk Chennai District – Appellant
Versus
A.V. Radhakrishnan & Others – Respondent
Application No. 1915 of 2020 in C.S.No. 117 of 2019
Decided On : 18-12-2020
For the Applicant : R. Udhayakumar, Additional Government Pleader.
For the Respondents:R1, K.V. Babu, T. Mohan, R5, M. Murali, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that relitigation and abuse of process of law, including attempts to circumvent earlier court orders, cannot be tolerated.
Headnote:
Application - Rejection of Plaint - Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules - Order VII Rules 11 of CPC - Writ Petitions - Survey Number - T.S.No.17 Block 33 - Natham Poromboke - Encroachment - Cause of Action
Fact of the Case:
The 4th Defendant filed an application to reject the plaint in C.S.No.117 of 2019, arguing that the suit was barred by law and devoid of any cause of action. The Plaintiff claimed that the Survey No.141/2 was wrongly reclassified as a road without following due procedure, and authorities were interfering with the peaceful possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff had lost legal battles in various writ petitions and that the suit was an abuse of process of law. The Court analyzed the history of the dispute, including multiple writ petitions and orders, and concluded that the suit was nothing but relitigation and an attempt to circumvent earlier court orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was maintainable and whether the plaintiff had a cause of action. The Court also considered the validity of the documents and proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suit was an abuse of process of law and amounted to relitigation. It emphasized that the plaintiff's attempt to circumvent earlier court orders through clever drafting could not be encouraged.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the suit and allowed the application to reject the plaint.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rules 11 of CPC to reject the plaint in C.S.No.117 of 2019 as barred by law and devoid of any cause of action.)
This application has been filed by the 4th Defendant to reject the plaint in C.S.No.117 of 2019 as barred by law and devoid of any cause of action.
2.(a) It is stated in the application that the plaintiff has filed various writ petitions with regard to the suit property and finally one of the writ petitions was disposed of on 24.09.2000 in W.P.No.17159 of 2000. The above writ petition this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to inspect the land on 03.11.2000 and submit a report as to the correct location and classification of the property in dispute. In the above writ petition, Report has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating that suit land currently comprised in T.S.No.17 in Block No.33 of Koyambedu Village, which was previously correlated to the Old Survey No.141/2. However, the present T.S.No.17 in Block No.33 of Koyambedu Village had been classified as Natham Poromboke as per the current classification. The above Writ Petition was disposed of on 05.12.2000. Based on the above Writ Petition, another Writ Petition also filed in W.P.No.21665 of 2012 seeking a Mandamus directing the Applicant and 2nd to 4th Respondents to effect suitable corrections in revenue records. In the meanwhile 3rd and 4th Respondents issued notice to the 1st Respondent to remove the encroachment. The same was challenged in another Writ Petition No.10515 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.01.2017 directing the authorities to demarcate the boundaries of the land of first respondent and proceed in accordance with law. In view of the same W.P.No.21665 of 2012 also came to be disposed.
2(b) Thereafter, 2nd Respondent issued notice dated 24.02.2017 directing the 1st Respondent to remove the encroachment within 7 days. Chanllenging the notice dated 24.02.2017, the 1st Respondent filed another Writ Petition No.5472 of 2017. By order dated 03.03.2017 this Court directed the authorities to demarcate the property in question after afforiding an opportunity to the 1st Respondent. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted on 24.04.2017 followed by a joint inspection on 25.04.2017. An order was pased on 08.05.2017 directing the applicant/plaintiff to remove the encroachment. The same was challenged in W.P.No.13373 of 2017. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 08.01.2019 and the Court has held that the 1st Respondent is not having any right over the S.No.141/1and the encroached property is identified by the revenue authorities. Hence it is the contention that several Writ Petitions already disposed of in respect of the same survey number and the Division Banch has conclusively held that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff has no right over the Survey No.141/1. Now the suit has been filed stating that the Survey No.141/2 classified in T.S.No.17 Block 33 is wrongly re-classified as road without following any procedure and the authorities are interfering with the peaceful possession of the land.
2(c) Hence it is the contention that the suit is liable to be rejected and even in the interim order stage this Court has verified all the documents and found that the western road is common road and portion of the land in Survey No.141/2 did form part of the Road and has now been assigned TS.No.17 in Block 33 of Koyambedu Village. The same is admittedly being used as a road by the owners of lands situate further north of the 1st Respondent's property to reach Poonamallee High road on the north. Hence it is contented that the suit has to be rejected and there is no cause of action.
3. Denying the entire allegations the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff filed his counter stating that the original report by the Revenue Divisional Officer before the Court on 17.11.2000 indicate that suit land is cu
