Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4586
MADRAS HIGH COURT
SINGLE BENCH
Ms. P.T. Asha, J.
R. RAMAMOORTHY — Appellant
Vs.
KANAKAMMA — Respondent
C.R.P(PD). Nos. 1463 and 1464 of 2010 and C.R.P.(PD). No. 1556 of 2011 and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided on : 26-07-2018
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Mr. M.S. Subramanian, Advocate, for the Petitioner in all cases; Mr. P.R. Thiruneelakandan, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 in C.R.P(PD) Nos. 1463 and 1464/10 and for 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9 to 11 in C.R.P.(PD). No. 1556 of 2011; Died, for the Respondent No. 2 in C.R.P(PD) Nos. 1463 and 1464 of 2010 and C.R.P.(PD). No. 1556 of 2011; No appearance, for the Respondent Nos. 5, 10 to 17 in C.R.P(PD) Nos. 1463 and 1464/10; Not ready in notice regarding, for the respondent No. 18 in C.R.P(PD) Nos. 1463 and 1464 of 2010; No appearance, for the Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 12 to 16
The importance of accurate measurements and reports in determining the extent of encroachment and the need for expedited hearing of the suit.
Headnote:
Civil Revision Petitions - Suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit properties and permanent injunction - Reference to Acts and Sections: Field Measurement Book (F.M.B), Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - The court emphasized the importance of identifying the survey number in which the compound wall is situated and the need for accurate measurements and reports to arrive at a decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit to declare their right, title, and interest over the suit properties and sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reports and plans submitted in the interlocutory applications were insufficient and did not provide clear information on the encroachment and drainage of sullage water and rubbish. The court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit and instructed the Assistant District Surveyor to inspect the property and submit a report within one month.
Issues: The main issue was the identification of the survey number in which the compound wall is situated and the extent of encroachment made by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for accurate measurements and reports to determine the extent of encroachment and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit.
Final Decision: C.R.P.(PD).No.1556 of 2011 was dismissed, and C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1463 and 1464 of 2010 were allowed, with directions for the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit and for the Assistant District Surveyor to inspect the property and submit a report within one month.
COMMON ORDER
Ms. P.T. Asha, J. - Since the issue in all the three Civil Revision Petitions has its genesis in the Suit O.S.No.6 of 2006 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruttani, Tiruvallur District, this Court is taking up all the three revisions and passing a Common Order.
2.The revisions and the orders against which they have been filed are detailed herein below:
a) C.R.P.(PD).No.1463 of 2010 is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.379 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2006 which is an application to strike out the report and sketch filed by the Taluk Head Surveyor in I.A.No.808 of 2007.
b) C.R.P.(PD)No.1464 of 2010 is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.380 of 2009 which is an application filed to appoint the Assistant District Surveyor, Tiruvallur, to inspect the suit property and to measure the suit disputed land in Survey No.49/1B by fixing G.line in relation to the F.M.B and to fix the survey number in which the suit first item wall is found constructed and to note the extent of encroachment made by each of the defendants and the surveyor may be directed to take assistance of a photographer to take photos of each crucial fact and file his report with sketch.
c) C.R.P.(PD).No.1556 of 2011 is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.808 of 2007 which is filed to appoint the Head Surveyor, Tiruttani to localize Survey Nos.48/1 to 48/3 and 49/1 to 49/5 of the Old Survey held in 1954.
3.The parties are described in the same array as in the suit. The plaintiff is the Civil Revision Petitioner in all the three Civil Revision Petitions.
4.The suit O.S.No.6 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff to declare his right, title and interest over the suit properties and consequently, grant a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 9 and their children and other family members and others claiming under them, from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties including the stone fencing wall by letting their sullage water or dumping their rubbish in the suit first item land or causing damage to the stone fencing wall in the suit first item land. They had also sought for a permanent injunction, restraining the 10th defendant from dumping rubbish in the suit second item of the property.
5.The 1st item of the suit property is an extent of 3.98 acres of dry land, comprised in Survey No.49/1B, Amruthapuram Village, Tiruttani Firka, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur District, in New Patta Nos.220, 221, 227, 1208, before U.D.R Old Patta No.354 and 1504, which is bounded on the North by the land comprised in Survey No.49/1A belonging to Sumathy, South by stone fencing wall of the plaintiff and further South by the defendants Backyard, East by the land belonging to Sumathy comprised in Survey Nos.49/4 and 49/5 west by the Suit second item land in Survey No.47/4 and other belongings to the plaintiff.
6.The 2nd item of property is an extent of 25.98 cents of dry land, comprised in Survey No.49/1 within the following boundaries North by land big rock in Survey No.47/3 being poramboke land; South and East by suit first item of property and West by the Podatturpet Road in New Patta No.352 and Old U.D.R.Nos.354 and 1504.
7.The plaintiff had claimed exclusive right to the stone fencing put up along the length of his property including the suit property stating that the same had been put up 150 years ago by his ancestors and the stone wall ran the length of Survey No.49/1 now 49/1B, 47/4 and 49/4. The breadth of this wall was 3 feet and the height ranged from 43 feet to 6 feet. The cause of action for filing of the suit was the attempts made by the defendants to drill holes into the stone wall and remove the stones from the stone wall to throw rubbish and let out sullage waters into the property of the plaintiffs, namely the first item of the suit property. The 10th defendant, who is none other than the Executive Officer of the Tiruttani Municipality, was also arrayed as a party, since
