Madras High Court
Mrs.J.Vanitha vs The Commissioner on 24 June, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.2426 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.2426 of 2018
Mrs.J.Vanitha
W/o. Late D.Jayaraman ..Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner,
Chennai Corporation,
Chennai – 600 003. ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
28.02.2018 made in E.P.No.1224 of 2016 in OS.No.1609 of 1996 on the file
of the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon
For Respondent : Ms.Karthikaa Ashok
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2426 of 2018
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal
order dated 28.02.2018 made in E.P.No.1224 of 2016 in OS.No.1609 of
1996 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, thereby
dismissing the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the first
defendant in the suit. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and delivery
of possession with damages. The suit was decreed by the Judgment and
decree dated 29.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed the
Appeal Suit in A.S.No.163 of 2006 and confirmed the Judgment and Decree
passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner herein. In pursuant to
the decree, she filed Execution Petition in E.P.Nos.622 of 2004 and 624 of
2004 for executing the decree. Both the Execution Petitions were allowed.
Accordingly, the suit property was delivered to the petitioner and also a sum
of Rs.50,000/- was paid as damages to the petitioner herein. Thereafter,
when the petitioner was not in station, again the respondent trespassed into
the property and laid road. As such, she submitted detailed representation
to the respondent to restore her possession and enjoyment of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2426 of 2018
property. The respondent did not take any action and as such, the petitioner
filed a Writ Petition against the first respondent before the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.34203 of 2012. Though this Court had
dismissed the Writ Petition dated 11.01.2013, wherein the petitioner was
given a liberty to file Execution Petition to execute the decree granted in her
favour. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the Execution Petition and the
same was dismissed for the reason that the petitioner was already handed
over the possession of the suit property in E.P.No.622 of 2004.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner acquired the suit property by the registered sale deed dated
15.12.1983. She also obtained planning permission to construct the house.
Accordingly, she completed the construction of house and assessed to the
property tax. At that juncture, the respondent herein demolished the entire
house and laid road on the suit property. Therefore, she was constrained to
file the suit for declaration and also seeking damages. In pursuant to the
decree, delivery of possession was ordered in Execution Petition
Proceedings. He further submitted that after delivery of possession, again
the respondent trespassed into the property and laid road.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2426 of 2018
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the
suit property classified as Government Poramboke and it is a road.
Therefore, this Court directed the respondent to inspect the suit property
and file a report about its nature and classification. Accordingly, they
inspected the suit property on 10.06.2021 and found that the suit property is
a road. It is situated at old Survey No.96/26 Part and new Survey No.554
and is classified as a Sarkar Poramboke and shown as road.
5. It seems that identity of the suit property is the issue herein, since
according to the respondent herein, the road laid in old Survey No.96/26
Part and new Survey No.554 is classified as a Sarkar Poramboke. Whereas
the suit property is situated in Plot No.94-B, Varadharajan Street, Vetri
Nagar, Madas 82 comprised in Old.S.Nos.52, 53, 55, 59, 60, 61, 63, 96/2B,
97/2B corresponding to T.S.No.25/6B, Block No.1 of Peravallur Village,
Sub Registration District of Sembium and bounded on the North by
Ramachandran Reddy's land, East by Plot No.94-A, South By -30 feet Road
and West by Plot No.118.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2426 of 2018
6. Unfortunately, the Execution Court without verifying the above
mentioned details about the said property, mechanically dismissed the
Execution Petition on the ground that the possession of the suit property
was already delivered to the petitioner.
7. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court
below in E.P.No.1224 of 2016 in OS.No.1609 of 1996 dated 28.02.2018 is
set aside. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. The matter is
remanded back to the Execution Court for fresh disposal. It is made clear
that the Execution Court is directed to appoint the concerned authority to
identify the suit property with the help of the surveyor and demarcate the
suit property and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
order as to costs.
24.06.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2426 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
dh
To
X Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
CRP.NPD.No.2426 of 2018
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
