Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
K.KAMALA and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Executive Officer and ors. – Respondents
S.A.No.398 of 2017
Decided On : 20-12-2023
CIVIL PROCEDURE - REJECTION OF PLAINT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, SECTION 100; ORDER 7 RULE 11; TAMIL NADU MINOR INAMS (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1963 - The court discussed the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, particularly Section 100 and Order 7 Rule 11, which govern the rejection of plaints. It emphasized that only the plaint's averments and documents should be considered, not the defendants' defenses. The court also referenced the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act, asserting that the jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate title claims remains intact despite ongoing settlement proceedings under the Act. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to allow the appeal and restore the suit for trial, underscoring the importance of maintaining civil court jurisdiction in property disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain lands, claiming they were granted these lands as personal grants. The 2nd respondent sought to reject the plaint, arguing that the appellants had previously executed a surrender deed and that the suit was barred by res judicata and limitation. The trial court rejected the plaint, a decision upheld by the first appellate court, prompting the appellants to appeal to the higher court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts improperly considered documents from the defendants when rejecting the plaint, which should only have been based on the plaint's averments. It also concluded that the civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate title claims, even when related settlement proceedings are pending.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower courts erred in considering the defendants' documents while rejecting the plaint. 2. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of title despite ongoing proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of a plaint must be based solely on the plaint's averments and documents, not on the defendants' defenses. It reaffirmed that civil courts have jurisdiction to decide on title claims independently of administrative proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside, and the suit was restored to the trial court for disposal according to law.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No.35 of 2014 dated 26.08.2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram confirming the Order and decree in I.A.No.2008 of 2012 in O.S.No.187 of 2012 dated 30.04.2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur.
The Second Appeal is arising out of judgement and decree passed by First Appellate Court confirming an order of rejection of the plaint. The appellants and 3rd respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the respondents 1 and 2 in O.S.No.187 of 2012. The 2nd respondent herein, who was arrayed as 2nd defendant in the suit filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellants and 3rd respondent herein preferred an appeal and the First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the appellants are before this Court.
2. According to the appellants and 3rd respondent/plaintiffs, the suit property was given to their predecessors-in-interest as a personal grant and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit inam lands as such. After notification under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963, the husband of 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 5 and 3rd respondent herein and grandfather of the appellants 6 and 7 namely A.N.Katchabeswara Gurukkal claimed patta for the suit lands under Minor Inams Abolition Act proceedings. The Assistant Settlement Officer by order dated 10.08.2011 granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of 1st respondent/1st defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu in Inam C.M.A.No.10 of 2011 and the same was pending on the date of filing of the present plaint. It was claimed by the appellants that dehors the patta granted in favour of 1st respondent, the question of title could be agitated before the Civil Court. The 2nd respondent taking advantage of the dispute between the appellants and 1st respondent had committed trespass into the suit lands and constructed unauthorised construction in the suit properties. Hence, the above suit was filed seeking declaration of plaintiffs' (appellants and 3rd respondent) title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of suit properties after removal of construction made by the 2nd defendant.
3. The 2nd respondent herein filed I.A.No.2008 of 2012 seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the appellants and 3rd respondent/plaintiffs. In his affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was contended by the 2nd respondent that no document had been produced by the appellants to substantiate their claim of personal grant in favour of their predecessors-in- interest. It was also claimed that 2nd appellant herein pending proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer, executed a document in favour of 1st respondent on 16.05.2007 surrendering the suit property in favour of Temple admitting its title. Therefore, the appellants were estopped from claiming title and maintaining the present suit. The 2nd respondent also claimed that it was a lawful tenant of the suit properties under 1st respondent in whose favour patta was granted in inam settlement proceedings. The 2nd respondent also contended that the present suit is hit by principles of res judicata and barred by limitation.
4. The Trial Court on enquiry held that appellants having executed a Surrender Deed in favour of 1st respondent cannot come before the Court seeking title over the suit properties and allowed the application. Hence, plaint filed by the appellants and 3rd respondent was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection of plaint, the appellants and 3rd respondent herein preferred a
AI
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not barred by the grant of patta under the Inam Abolition Act, and the appellant must pr....
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the plaintiff's title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud. The grant of patta and reliance o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963, and the possession was not with the first defendant, but with the seco....
The court affirmed that possession follows title, and a plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title even if a previous suit for injunction was dismissed due to lack of possession.
Point of law : Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Wh....
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals under Section 100 is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot reassess factual findings unless a clear error in law has been demonstrate....
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
