Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Chinnasami & Others - Appellant
Versus
Dhanasekaran - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 213 of 2014 & MP No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 18-04-2022
Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure - [JURISDICTION] - [TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION] - [Section 17 of CPC] - The court discussed the application of Section 17 of the CPC and emphasized that the suit must be filed for a cause of action with respect to all properties forming part of the suit. The court held that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and set aside the lower appellate court's decree, ultimately dismissing the entire suit on the ground of maintainability and coram non judice.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming title over certain properties and seeking relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction, and delivery of possession. The trial court dismissed the suit with respect to the 2nd schedule properties but decreed it for the 1st schedule properties. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the second appeal court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit with respect to the 2nd schedule properties and that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit for the 1st schedule properties. The lower appellate court's decree was set aside, and the entire suit was dismissed on the ground of maintainability and coram non judice.
Issues: The issues involved the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, the validity of the plaintiff's claim based on a Will, and the lower appellate court's compliance with procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 17 of the CPC, which requires a cause of action for the plaintiff with respect to all properties forming part of the suit. The court emphasized that the trial court's lack of territorial jurisdiction rendered its findings on the merits of the case a nullity in the eye of the law.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the entire suit was dismissed on the ground of maintainability and coram non judice. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.9.2013 made in A.S.No.58 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi reversing the judgment and decree in OS.No.699 of 2008 dated 27.6.2012 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi.)
1. The present second appeal is a textbook case as to how a litigant can manipulate and agitate a suit before a Court by clever drafting creating an illusion as if there is a cause of action for one of the property which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court and whereas the real dispute is with regard to another property which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and which otherwise could not have been tried by the Court and will be hit by the principle of coram non judice.
2. The defendants are the appellants in this Second Appeal.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the 1st schedule of the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and the 2nd schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the paternal grandfather which fell to his share by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 24-11-1959. The further case of the plaintiff is that the paternal grandfather Raja Gounder executed a registered Will dated 17-8-1986 in favour of the plaintiff regarding the 1st schedule of properties. Similarly, he executed another Will dated 1-11-1990 in favour of the plaintiff regarding the 2nd schedule properties. The said Raja Gounder passed away on 29-3-1991 and the Wills executed by him came into force and thereby, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the 1st and 2nd schedule properties.
4. The actual grievance as projected in the plaint and the cause of action for filing the suit is extracted hereunder for proper appreciation:
3. The plaintiff having stayed in Krishnapuram village, Kallakurichi, entrusted the 2nd schedule of suit properties with the defendants herein to take care on behalf of the plaintiff. However, the defendants recently colluded together to grab the suit properties from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff learns that the defendants have created sham and nominal documents regarding the suit properties as if they belonged to them. The plaintiff submits that what so ever the documents be, they will not bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 31.12.2007. to the defendants and the defendants received the notice and caused a vexatious reply dated 14.1.2008 stating false details as if they are the owners of the properties, denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties. Hence it is just and essential that the plaintiff’s title ought to be declared and the defendants are to be restrained by means of a permanent injunction regarding the 1” schedule of the suit properties and recovery of possession by means of mandatory injunction regarding the 2nd schedule of the suit properties, or the plaintiff submits that he shall be put to irreparable loss and inconvenience. Hence the suit.
5. The plaintiff therefore sought for the relief of declaration of title of the plaintiff over both the properties. Insofar as the 1st schedule properties, he sought for a consequential relief of permanent injunction and for the 2nd schedule properties, he sought for the relief of delivery of possession.
6. The defendants filed a written statement. They took a stand that the 2nd schedule properties originally belonged to one Chinna Gounder who had two sons namely Ponnu alias Chinna Gounder and Raja Gounder. The 1st defendant is the son of Chinna Gounder. The further case projected by the defendants was that Raja Gounder had two wives. The 1st wife Pavayee had a daughter and the 2nd wife Ponnayee had a son named Periyasamy. The plaintiff is the legal heir of Periyasamy.
7. The defendants further pleaded that there was a partition on 24-11-1959 whereby the ‘A’ schedule p
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit must be filed for a cause of action with respect to all properties forming part of the suit, and the court must have territorial juri....
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such relief, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the bar under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, which rendered the suits not maintainable.
The onus of proving the defence of ouster/adverse possession in a suit for partition, the estoppel of the respondents, and the conduct of the second respondent in not filing any suit and obtaining a ....
Point of law: Considerations in terms of Section 100 CPC arise only when there is substantial question of law and not mere such questions of law or one based on facts. The learned counsel for the res....
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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
