http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 9

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 78-79 of 2002

PETITIONER:

S. Bagirathi Ammal

RESPONDENT:

Palani Roman Catholic Mission

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2007

BENCH:

B.N. Agrawal & P.P. Naolekar & P. Sathasivam

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 78-79 OF 2002

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Challenging the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Madras in Review Application Nos.

8 & 9 of 1997 filed by the respondent herein whereby a

learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the same, the

appellant has filed these appeals.

2) The respondent herein was the owner of the suit vacant

land in question. In 1959, the suit land was leased out for five

years by the respondent to the appellant herein. On 3.3.1965,

the tenancy was renewed for another period of three years.

After the expiry of three years, the respondent wanted the

appellant to vacate the premises. As the appellant did not

vacate, the respondent issued a notice on 28.8.1968

demanding possession for which he sent a reply with false and

frivolous allegations. In the year 1969, the respondent filed

O.S.No.218 of 1969 for recovery of land. The appellant also

filed O.S.No. 75 of 1970 as a counter blast for getting a fresh

lease document from the respondent. On 14.12.1970, O.S.No.

218 of 1969 was compromised and O.S.No. 75 of 1970 was

dismissed as not pressed. The appellant did not vacate the

suit property in spite of repeated demands by the respondent,

therefore, the respondent filed a fresh Suit i.e. O.S.No. 76 of

1977 for delivery of possession. On 27.7.1978, O.S. No.76 of

1977 was decreed in favour of the respondent while O.P. No. 4

of 1977 filed by the appellant for purchase of the land by her

was erroneously dismissed and an order of eviction was

passed against the appellant by the Court of District Munsif,

Palani. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 gives

the option of purchasing the site from the landlord by the

tenant in case a suit for eviction is filed by the landlord where

the tenant is the owner of the superstructure standing thereon

and if the tenant is not interested in buying the site then the

landlord can buy the superstructure or ask the tenant to

remove the superstructure and seek delivery of possession.

The said Act was extended to the town of Palani in Tamil Nadu

only in 1975, therefore, the option of buying the site from the

respondent became available to the appellant as the owner of

the superstructure. The appellant filed an application O.P.

No. 4 of 1977 in Suit No. 76 of 1977 for purchase of land by

him which was dismissed. Against the said order, the

appellant filed A.S.No. 121 of 1978 and another A.A.O. No. 94

of 1978 against the order in O.P. No. 4 of 1977. The appellate

Court allowed the appeals of the appellant directing the

respondent to sell the land to the appellant for an amount of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 9

Rs.65,092.50. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent

filed S.A.No. 2149 of 1981 and C.R.P. No. 2204 of 1980

against the order allowing the petition of the appellant for

purchase of the suit property. The second appeal and the

revision petition filed by the respondent were dismissed by a

learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras. Against

that order, the respondent filed S.L.P.(c) Nos. 5029 and 5030

of 1984 before this Court which were dismissed. After the stay

order operating from 1980 to 1985 continuously ceased to

operate, the appellant deposited the full site value. With the

dismissal of the S.L.Ps by this Court and the deposit of the full

site value by the appellant, the same became final. In the year

1985, the appellant filed an execution petition being E.P. No.

257 of 1985 for execution of the sale deed of the land in his

favour by the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent

filed an execution petition being E.P. No. 79 of 198