SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
B. Rajamani & Others – Appellants
Versus
N. Gunasekaran & Another – Respondents
C.R.P.(PD). No. 3912 of 2016 & C.M.P. Nos. 20105 & 20106 of 2016
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Kandhan Duraisamy, Advocate. For the Respondents:S. Venkatesh, Advocate.

Headnote:

Order 7 Rule 11 - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Summary: The court discussed the history of the property dispute and the multiple rounds of litigation. The judgment highlighted the abuse of process of law and misuse of court proceedings by the defendants and their legal representatives. The court emphasized the principles under Order 7 Rule 11, scrutinized the cause of action, and rejected the plaint, setting aside the lower court's order.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a property dispute with a long history of litigation. The plaintiffs, Marudhiakkal and Saraswathi, faced multiple rounds of litigation against Tmt.Palaniammal and her children, involving suits for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. The defendants exhibited an indomitable spirit for litigation, leading to a series of court battles.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit suffered from the vice of abuse of process of law and did not have any cause of action. It emphasized the need to reject the plaint and avoid burdening the court with frivolous litigation. The court also highlighted the presumption of regular performance of judicial and official acts and concluded that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property.

Issues: The key issues included the abuse of process of law, the existence of a cause of action, and the possession of the property by the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles under Order 7 Rule 11, the presumption of regular performance of judicial acts, and the lack of cause of action in the suit. It also considered the history of litigation and the parties involved in the dispute.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the order passed in O.S.No.507 of 2016 was set aside, and the plaint was rejected with a cost of Rs.1,00,000 payable by the respondents to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Final Orders dated 24.10.2016 made in I.A.No.507 of 2016 in O.S.No.550 of 2016 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore and pray to set-aside the same.)

1.This case has a checkered history. The Revision before me arises against an order passed by the Learned IInd Additional Subordinate Judge Coimbatore in I.A.No.507 of 2016 in O.S.No.550 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016. The said application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was dismissed, hence, the revision.

Facts Leading To The Case

2. There was a gentleman by the name of Nanjappa Konar. He got the suit schedule mentioned property by way of a registered partition deed in document No.2129 of 1929 dated 20.06.1929. The document is registered on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar No.II, Coimbatore. Nanjappa Konar had two wives, his first wife was called Marudhiakkal & his second wife was one Palaniammal.

3. Nanjappa Konar sold the property to his first wife Marudhiakkal by way of a registered sale deed in document No.1053 of 1936 dated 25.05.1936. The document is registered on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar Office, No.II, Coimbatore. The sale deed was a princely sum of Rs.4,000/- in the year 1936.

4. Marudhiakkal had two daughters, one was called Marudhiakkal, wife of Ramasamy and the other, one Saraswathi wife of Rangasamy. Having possessed and enjoying the property from 1936, Marudhiakkal registered a Will in favour of her daughters on 29.11.1974. Thereafter, she executed two settlement deeds in favour of her daughters, on 16.10.1979 and 17.10.1979 respectively. The settler was Marudhiakkal, (wife of Nanjappa Konar) and the beneficiaries/settles were Marudhiakkal, (wife of Ramasamy) and Saraswathi (wife of Rangasamy).

5. Having parted with the property within a couple of years, Marudhiakkal, (wife of Nanjappa Konar) passed away on 07.02.1981. The settlement deed having been executed by the owner, Marudhiakkal, (wife of Ramasamy) and Saraswathi (wife of Rangasamy), became the owners of the property.

First Round Of Litigation

6. The second wife of Nanjappa Konar, Tmt.Palaniammal trespassed into the suit property, constraining the owners, Marudhiakkal (wife of Ramasamy) and Saraswathi, (wife of Rangasamy) to present O.S.No.195 of 1982. It is pertinent to point out here that the vendor of the present plaintiffs, N.Subramaniam was a party/ 5th defendant to the suit.

7. O.S.No.195 of 1982 was a suit, for seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. The defendants in the suit were Palaniammal and her four sons:-

(I). Rangasamy,

(II). Ramasamy,

(III). Seerangan and

(IV). N.Subramaniam.

The suit underwent an elaborated trial. It was decreed as prayed for on 03.10.1983.

8. Pending the suit, a portion of the property had been alienated in favour of one Venkateshwarlu. Therefore, Venkateshwarlu was also made as a party/6th defendant to the suit.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.195 of 1982, two regular appeals were filed. One appeal was at the instance of the second wife of Nanjappa Konar, namely the original defendant No.1 and her sons defendant Nos.2 to 5. This was in A.S.No.299 of 1983. The purchaser of a portion of the suit property, Venkateshwarlu filed A.S.No.329 of 1983. Both the appeal suits were taken up for joint hearing by the Learned District Judge at Coimbatore. The Learned Principal District Judge dismissed both the appeals on 29.06.1985. The dismissal of the first appeal in A.S.No.299 of 1983 was put in challenge before this Court in S.A.No.1538 of 1985. The subsequent purchaser, Venkateshwarlu did not file any appeal.

10. By a judgment dated 24.04.1987, the second appeal in S.A.No.1538 of 1985 was dismissed, confirming the sale deed executed by Nanjappa Konar in favour of his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top