Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
V. Sivaraj & Another – Appellants
Versus
L. Chandru & Others – Respondents
C.S. No. 182 of 2019
Decided On : 17-07-2023
For the Plaintiffs:T.V. Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for R. Ramya, Advocate. For the Defendants: Set exparte
Coercion and duress can render a memorandum of understanding null and void. Evidence of title to properties is crucial in obtaining a permanent injunction. Claims for damages must be quantified to be granted.
Headnote:
Memorandum of Understanding - Declaration of Nullity - CPC, 1908 - Order IV, Rule 1, Order VII, Rule 1 - [Exhibit P.39] - [Title to Properties, Coercion, Duress] - [Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IV, Rule 1, Order VII, Rule 1]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 14.02.2019 was null and void, permanent injunction restraining the defendants, and damages for high-handed demolition of properties. The defendants were set ex parte, and the plaintiffs presented evidence of their title to the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MOU was obtained under threat, coercion, and duress, and thus declared it null and void. The court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants and awarded costs to the plaintiffs. However, the claim for damages was not granted due to lack of quantification.
Issues: The issues considered were coercion in executing the MOU, the validity of the MOU, entitlement to permanent injunction, and the claim for damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MOU was obtained under coercion and duress, leading to its nullity. The plaintiffs' evidence established their title to the properties, supporting the grant of permanent injunction. However, the claim for damages was not granted due to lack of quantification.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit by declaring the MOU null and void, granting permanent injunction, and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil suit filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of Original side Rules read with Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 (a) for a declaration declaring that the document styled as Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.02.2019 in which the signatures of the plaintiffs were obtained in the Old Commissioner of Police Office at Egmore, Chennai-600 008 by S. Anbazhagan, Inspector of Police, ALG Cell, Team-16, CCB and the defendant by threat, coercion and duress is null and void and not binding upon the same and by setting aside the same,
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants and anyone claiming under him or acting on his behalf from in any way dealing with the suit A. B and C schedule properties either by alienating or encumbering the same or in any other manner whatsoever;
(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and men and everyone claiming under him or acting on his behalf from in any way interfering with the plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit A, B and C schedule properties in any manner whatsoever,
(d) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) for high-handedly demolishing the compound walls and damaging the electric connection, electric meter, bore well, zinc sheets with iron angles attached to the ground in plaint A, B and C schedule properties
i) directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit, and
(f) grant such other suitable relief or reliefs as this Hon''ble Court may fit and proper under the circumstances of this case and thus render)
1.The suit is filed to declare the Memorandum of Understanding executed as Exhibit P.39 as null and void and to restrain the defendants from claiming any rights in the schedule properties, and also for the damages caused in the schedule mentioned properties.
2. When the matter stood for consideration Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, suit summons was served on to the defendants in the month of March 2019, despite receiving the notice none has appeared before this Court. Consequently, the defendants were set ex parte by order dated 24.03.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce oral evidence.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submit that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one late Krishna Reddiar who had executed a settlement deed dated 05.11.1932, which is marked and produced as Ex.P2, in favour of his sons and among the sons, late Munusamy Reddiar, who is the father of the vendor Venkatarama Reddiar was allotted an extent of 16529 sq.ft. This settlement deed of 1932 establishes continuous possession and enjoyment of schedule properties of the vendors and their predecessors.
4. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the plaintiffs along with one late K.Kanniah has purchased the scheduled mentioned properties from late Venkatarama Reddiar and his grandsons N.Jayaprakash and N.Sureshkumar. The father of the 2nd plaintiff, late K.Kannaiah, had purchased the “C”schedule property, 1st plaintiff had purchased the “A” schedule property and the 2nd plaintiff had purchased the “B” schedule properties on 17.09.1996, 18.09.1996 and 19.09.1996 respectively, and the same has been registered on the file of Joint-1, Sub-Registrar Officer, Saidapet, Chennai as Doc No. 4305, 4335 and 4362 of 1996 each measuring to an extent of 5777 sq ft, 4567 sq ft and 5915 sq ft respectively. Those sale deeds are produced as Exs.P7 to P9. The said K.Kannaiah died on 01.09.2012, he is survived by his wife, son (2nd plaintiff herein) and two daughters Mrs.Suganiya and Mrs. Suchitra. The mother and sisters of the 2nd plaintiff have executed a release deed dated 16.11.2012 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and the same was registered as Doc No. 8292 of 2012 in the office of the Sub-Regist
