Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 34361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Lakshmi Narayanan, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, JJ
1st petitioner – Appellant
Versus
respondents 1 to 6 – Respondent
O.S. No.37 of 2024 | A.S. No.96 of 1972 | S.A. No.1555 of 1979 | RCOP No.7 of 2012 | C.R.P. (PD) No.1491 of 2024 | C.R.P. No.2481 of 2023 | C.R.P. No.2963 of 2024 | W.P. (MD) Nos.14889/2013 | W.P. (MD) No. 22855/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: learned senior counsel
For the Respondents:learned counsel for the 7th respondent

The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 permits striking off pleadings or rejecting plaints to prevent abuse of process or vexatious litigation even when alternative remedies exist under procedural law.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 6(13), 6(18), 34, 78, 109 - Civil Procedure Code, Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 - Article 227 of the Constitution - Revision petition challenging plaint for being an abuse of process and barred by statutory provisions.(Paras 1, 14-17, 26-42, 74)

(B) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 - Court may strike off pleadings or reject plaint if there is abuse of process, lack of cause of action, or jurisdictional excess - Exercise of such power requires caution and is not totally barred by existence of alternative remedies under CPC.(Paras 27-33, 41-42)

(C) Adverse possession and prescriptive title - Claims cannot be sustained against religious institutions post enactment of protective provisions in Section 109 of the Act - Patta and payment of statutory dues do not confer title - Prior final decree in favour of religious institution bars relitigation and claim of adverse possession by successors-in-title.(Paras 43-73)

Facts of the case:
The respondents claimed ownership over disputed property leased originally under a 1908 deed from the petitioner, a religious institution. The respondents and their predecessors failed to pay lease rent, resulting in earlier suits whereby the petitioner’s title was declared and upheld in 1979 and 1984 respectively. Respondents filed suit claiming prescriptive title by adverse possession and tenancy rights of a 7th defendant under a 2001 alleged lease, which the petitioner challenged as barred by limitation and the TN HR & CE Act. The petitioner sought striking off the plaint invoking supervisory jurisdiction against continuance of the suit as an abuse of process.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 empowers striking off pleadings in cases of abuse or no cause of action, despite availability of alternative remedies. The respondents failed to establish adverse possession or lawful tenancy; prior final decree confers indefeasible title on petitioner. The subsequent lease without statutory approval is void. The suit constituted re-litigation and abuse of process. The plaint was struck off and suit dismissed. Directions were issued for eviction under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act.

Issues: (i) Maintainability of revision petition under Article 227 where appeal remedy exists under CPC; (ii) Power of High Court to strike off plaint/pleadings under Article 227; (iii) Validity of adverse possession and lease claims by respondents; (iv) Whether suit is abuse of process and lacks cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that although alternative remedies exist, Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is not totally barred and may be exercised where abuse of process or no cause of action is manifest. The suit filed by respondents was a cloak for re-litigation of settled title in favor of petitioner religious institution, barred by limitation and provisions of the HR & CE Act including amended Section 109. Patta and statutory payments do not confer title. The lease alleged by respondents without statutory sanction is invalid. Thus, the suit is vexatious and must be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

Result: Revision allowed; pleadings in suit struck off and suit dismissed as not maintainable. Directions granted for eviction of respondents under Section 78 of the Act. (Para 76)

Table of Content
1. final dismissal and directions for eviction (Para 1 , 75 , 76)
2. factual background about property ownership and lease (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. parties’ arguments on title, limitation, and jurisdiction (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. court analysis on maintainability of revision and supervisory jurisdiction (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. court analysis on striking pleadings and rejecting plaint under cpc orders vi rule 16 and vii rule 11 (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. court analysis of lease validity and prior litigation outcome (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
7. court's reasoning rejecting adverse possession and prescriptive title claims (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
8. court finding suit as abuse of process and relitigation (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)

ORDER

Through the present civil revision, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to strike off the plaint presented by the respondents herein/plaintiffs therein in O.S. No.37 of 2024, before the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, is an abuse of process of the court and as being barred under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as under :-

Respondents 1 to 6 herein, who are the plaintiffs 1 to 6 in the suit, claim their right over the disputed property through their predecessor-in-title, viz., Vellaichamy Gounder @ Chinathambi Gounder, the lessee, under a registered sale deed dated 28.5.1908.

3. It is the case of respondents 1 to 6 in the aforesaid suit that the said property was, to a large extent, a vacant land to an extent of 2250 sq.ft., which belonged to the 1^st petitioner herein with a dilapidated mud structure, which was leased out to the said Vellaichamy Gounder through Registered Document No. 310/1908 dated 28.5.1908 at a yearly rent of Rs.15/-. It is the further averment in the plaint that right was granted to the lessee to remove the dilapidated structure and put up pucca construction at his cost. On the basis of the said lease deed and encroaching upon the adjacent land, the said Vellaichamy Gounder put up construction and the said buildings were assessed to tax and he along with his family members were enjoying the same.

4. It is the further averment of the respondents 1 to 6 that upon the death of the said Vellaichamy Gounder, his only son, Ramalinga Gounder, who was the legal heir, inherited the property and was enjoying the same, but, however, without paying the lease amount to the 1^st petitioner herein. Since the lease amount was not paid, the 1^st petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S. No.2 of 1969 before the Sub Court, Dindigul, which, after, trial, was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.8.1971. Against the said judgment and decree, the 1^st petitioner filed appeal in A.S. No.96 of 1972 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Madurai, which was allowed on 11.7.1979 setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the trial court.

5. Pending the appeal, the said Ramalinga Gounder died leaving behind his legal heirs and the said legal heirs were enjoying all the properties of Ramalinga Gounder in addition to the suit schedule properties as their own properties.

Thereafter, upon the judgment and decree being passed in A.S. No.96/1972, the legal heirs of Ramalinga Gounder filed S.A. No.1555/1979 before this Court. It is the further averment of respondents 1 to 6 that pending the second appeal before this Court, on the basis of the assurance given by the then authorised person of the 1^st petitioner that no hindrance will be caused to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the legal heirs of the said Ramalinga Gounder, the appellants in the second appeal left the second appeal to be di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 34361

The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 permits striking off pleadings or rejecting plaints to prevent abuse of process or vexatious litigation even when alternative remedies exist under procedural law.

Cases Referred (12)