Madras High Court
Aruldoss vs Natarajan ... Petitioner / 1St on 13 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.(PD) No.192 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.1556 of 2019
1.Aruldoss
2.Paranthaman @ Bakiyasamy
3.Raj @ Parisutharaj
... Respondents1 – 3 / Petitioners/ Defendants 1-3
Vs
1.Natarajan ... Petitioner / 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.Packirisamy ... 4thRespondent / 4th Respondent / 4th Defendant
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.08.2018 made in
I.A.No.257 of 2016 in O.S.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate court, Nannilam.
For Petitioners .. Mr.S.Sounthar
For Respondents .. Ms.Abbiraami
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in O.S.No.21 of 2012 now pending
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Nannilam, are the revision petitioners herein.
2.O.S.No.21 of 2012 had been filed by the plaintiff seeking a
judgment and decree against the defendants therein for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful
possession and also for costs of the suit.
3.The defendants entered appearance and filed their written
statement. They denied the title of the plaintiff. They also stated that they
were in possession. This particular written statement was dated
02.07.2012.
4.It is pointed out by Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel for the
petitioner that once such a stand, particularly, questioning the title of the
plaintiff is taken, the plaintiff had an option to seek a further relief of
declaration of title. Such relief should be sought within a period of three
years from the date of this particular fact coming to the knowledge of the
plaintiff or rather from the date when the title of the plaintiff is denied
and challenged by the defendants.
5.Unfortunately, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.257 of 2016 much after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the said period and they sought to add an additional relief namely, for
recovery of possession. Both these reliefs have been sought on the basis
of the statements made by the defendants in the written statement.
6.Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel stated that this will not give rise
to a new cause of action. If the plaintiff wants to seek recovery of
possession they must come to the Court stating the date on which the
defendants had actually taken possession and thereafter, should seek
recovery of possession.
7.Unfortunately, in the affidavit filed in support of the said
application, the said details are not available. It had been only stated that
since in the written statement, the defendants claimed that they were in
possession and since they questioned the title of the plaintiff such reliefs
are sought by way of the said Interlocutory Application.
8.Ms.Abbiraami, learned counsel for the respondent, however
stated that the plaintiff has a lawful right to seek declaration of title and
also for recovery of possession. If such view is taken, the learned counsel
pointed out that the relief for recovery of possession would survive since
it had been sought within the period of limitation. But unfortunately, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
starting period of limitation had not been mentioned either in the plaint
or in the affidavit filed in support of the said Application.
9.The said application had been considered favourably by the
learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam by order
dated 01.08.2018. This order is now urged to be interfered with.
10.I find much force in the arguments advanced that the relief of
declaration should have been sought within a period of three years from
the date of such assertion made by the defendants in their written
statement. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to include such a relief by
way of an amendment to the plaint. The law of limitation has to be
interpreted quite strictly as giving a liberal interpretation would snatch
the valuable right which had accrued to the defendants.
11.With respect to the relief of recovery of possession, since the
details are not there in the plaint or in the affidavit filed in support of the
said Application, I would not permit such an amendment to be included.
12.Let me place a caveat at this point. If at all, during the evidence,
it appears that during the course of the suit, the defendants had taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
possession, then of course the plaintiff will have the additional burden of
explaining why they have not stated that fact in the affidavit filed in
support of I.A.No.257 of 2016.
13.At this stage, since the relief of recovery of possession is within
the period of limitation, if an application seeking such relief is again
presented by giving relevant details, the same may be taken up for
consideration. But, I would place a strong embargo on the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, to deeply consider
that relevant facts have not been pleaded. The flow in any trial would
swing like a pendulum and naturally, the Trial Judge is the master in
handling such situation.
14.With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
13.07.2021
smv
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
To:-
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Smv
C.R.P.(PD) No.192 of 2019
13.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
