Madras High Court
R.Kandasamy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 8 June, 2022
S.A(MD).No.244 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A(MD).No.244 of 2011
and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2011
R.Kandasamy .... Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep., by the District Collector,
Theni District, Theni. ... Defendant/Respondent/Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, against the decree and judgment dated 28.02.2011 passed in
A.S.No.90 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Court, Theni confirming the
decree and judgment dated 15.09.2009 passed by the District Munsif Court,
Aundipatty in O.S.No.102 of 2005.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Mahendran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran
Additional Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.244 of 2011
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff claims that he has been assigned the first item of property by
the Government and the second item of property, he had obtained under a
sale deed executed in his favour by some strangers. He alleges that on far
west of item Nos.1 and 2 vested to the Highway Department, in which, the
Government proposed to construct a channel or a drainage for draining the
rain water etc. The plaintiff would say that there are other channels on the
other side, but ultimately seeks a decree in that, the Government and its
authorities should not do anything to improve the channel in the far west of
item Nos.1 and 2 in the manner that would damage the item Nos.1 and 2.
2.The suit was contested and both the trial Court and the First Appellate
Court dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the plaintiff is before this
Court.
3.This second appeal is admitted by considering the following substantial
questions of law;
(a)Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court
regarding the non-joinder of necessary party is
correct or not?
(b)Whether the lower Appellate Court properly
appreciated exhibit A1 to A9 in favour of the
plaintiff?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.244 of 2011
(c)Whether the respondent forming the channel in
Survey No.791 belongs to Highways Department is
correct or not?
4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr.A.Baskaran,
learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently argue that the
Government is attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of item
Nos.1 and 2 and that there are channels on the other sides of the property
and channel now contemplated on the far west of suit property is absolutely
unnecessary. He also added that the finding of the First Appellate Court
that the National Highways Department is a necessary party, is also not
correct since it is the Government which is attempting to put up a channel
there.
6.This Court perused the plaint and finds that there is zero('0') cause of
action in the first place. At the end of the day, the property over which the
Government proposed to put up a channel does not belong to the plaintiff,
which he himself admits. What the Government or the National Highways
Authorities wants to do in its property is concerned, that should not be the
concern of the plaintiff at all. But, indeed by lying the suit, the plaintiff has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.244 of 2011
stalled the development programme by the Government for about 17 years.
This is gross irresponsibility on the part of the plaintiff.
7.This Court perused the judgments of both the Courts below and satisfied
that the findings on the aspect of fact and law are appropriate that hardly
warranting no interference in the second appeal stage.
8.Having stated that, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted
that the Government proposed to construct a channel only in the property
well beyond the properties of the plaintiff and it is no way interested in item
Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit property.
9.The said statement is recorded. Inasmuch as the Government has already
made a statement, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal and
accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected M.P(MD).No.1 of 2011 is closed.
08.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rmk/cm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.244 of 2011
To
1.The Sub-Judge, Theni.
2.The District Munsif, Aundipatty.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.244 of 2011
N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
rmk/cm
S.A(MD).No.244 of 2011
08.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
