Madras High Court
B.Rajalakshmi vs Kannan on 28 October, 2022
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
1.B.Rajalakshmi
2.B.Thankavel
3.B.Egambaram ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Kannan
2.Santha Kumar
3.Arasa Kumar
4.Senthilkumar
5.Sivakumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and decreetal orders dated
04.12.2020 made in C.M.A.No.4 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Sub
Court, Villupuram, which in turn arose against the fair and decreetal
orders dated 19.06.2014 made in I.A.No.1683 of 2011 in O.S.No.552 of
2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.D.S.Ramesh
for Mr.V.Rajendran
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal
orders dated 04.12.2020 made in C.M.A.No.4 of 2016 on the file of I
Additional Sub Court, Villupuram, which in turn arose against the fair
and decreetal orders dated 19.06.2014 made in I.A.No.1683 of 2011 in
O.S.No.552 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial Court and in appropriate places, their rank in the
present petition would also be indicated.
3.The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.552 of
2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram. They filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
the suit for declaration of title and for a consequential relief of permanent
injunction against the defendants. The suit property is an agricultural
lands measuring 51 cents in S.No.87/8A of Kusba Karanai Village,
Ashokapuri Post, Villupuram. The plaintiffs had become the owner of the
suit property through three different sale deeds dated 29.04.1954
(Ex.A1), 25.05.1955 (Ex.A21) and 16.12.1958 (Ex.A22) for 16 cents, 21
cents and 9 cents respectively. S.No.87/8 had a total extent of 59 cents
before its sub-division and the remaining 8 cents was owned by the first
defendant vide sale deed dated 07.02.1994 (Ex.A18). There was a re-
survey of the land in which the total extent of 59 cents in S.No.87/8 was
sub-divided into 51 cents in S.No.87/8A and 8 cents in S.No.87/8B.
However, while issuing patta which was hitherto was a joint patta bearing
patta no.91 (Ex.A3) the 51 cents of land in S.No.87/8A was erroneously
included in patta no.54 issued to the defendants and the land measuring 8
cents was included in patta no.138 given to the plaintiffs. Since patta
no.138 contained many land parcels bearing different survey numbers
this mistake went unnoticed and by the time it came to the knowledge of
the plaintiffs, the first defendant had applied to the revenue authorities for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
including their lands, to the extent of 8 cents (wrongly mentioned in patta
no.138) and the revenue authorities without any notice to the plaintiffs
ordered for the inclusion of 8 cents of land in patta no.54 deleting the
same from patta no.138. This led to a situation where the entire extent of
59 cents was shown in the revenue records as owned by the first
defendant. The plaintiffs after coming to know about the mistake applied
to the Tahsildar Villupuram who after conducting an enquiry corrected
the mistake by issuing a fresh patta 420 for the 51 cents in S.No.87/8A in
favour of the plaintiffs.
4.The defendants despite the correction of the bonafide mistake
in the patta continued to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit
property by the plaintiffs for which the plaintiffs had to file O.S.No.552
of 2006 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, praying for
declaration of the title and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had also
filed I.A.No.1537 of 2006 along with O.S.No.552 of 2006 for ad-interim
injunction which was declined due to which an appeal in CMA.No.3 of
2007 was filed before the Sub-Court, Villupuram. CMA.No.3 of 2007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
was allowed on 17.07.2007 which was challenged by the defendants in
CRP.No.3805/2009 and it was disposed of on 03.03.2010 with a
direction to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit within three
months. However, since the defendants allegedly trespassed into the suit
property despite the order in CMA.No.3 of 2007 the plaintiffs filed a
contempt petition in I.A.No.1683 of 2011 against the defendants. It was
taken up along with the main suit in which a decree was passed in favour
of the plaintiffs. However, the contempt petition was dismissed. This
dismissal of contempt petition was challenged by the plaintiffs in
CMA.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Villupuram.
The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, dismissed
CMA.No.4 of 2016 and the order of the learned District Munsif,
Villupuram, was upheld. Challenging the said orders, the present Civil
Revision Petition is filed.
5.Heard Mr.D.S.Ramesh for Mr.V.Rajendran learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
6.It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs had a decree in their
favour for the suit property comprising 51 cents. It is also true that they
had to seek legal remedy for their own property due to a mistake
committed by the revenue authorities while sub-dividing the survey
numbers 87/81 in to S.Nos.87/8A & 87/813. The trial Court had not only
declared the title of the plaintiffs but also granted permanent injunction in
respect of the suit property. The decree and judgment was passed on
19.06.2014 in O.S.No.552 of 2006 and as such the plaintiffs ought to
have filed an execution petition, if the defendants are obstructing their
possession.
7.In any event in I.A.No.1683/2011, the plaintiffs had
contended that the defendants trespassed into the suit property on
21.06.2010 and laid a pipleline. It is further contended that the
defendants cut the sugarcane crops on 30.07.2010 & 03.09.2011 and that
on all the three occasions the plaintiffs filed a criminal complaint with the
police against the defendants. However, the plaintiffs did not take steps to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
amend the plaint in O.S.No.552 of 2010 seeking for recovery of
possession of the suit properties even though according to the plaintiffs
the defendants trespassed into their property even during the pendency of
the suit. The judgment and decree was passed only in the year 2014.
8.Be that as it my, the learned District Munsif, Villupuram,
dismissed I.A.No.1683 of 2011 mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs
did not adduce any satisfactory evidence that the defendants had
trespassed into the suit property thereby interfered with the peaceful
possession of the plaintiffs.
9.In CMA.No.4 of 2016 the order of the trial Court in
I.A.No.1683 of 2011 was upheld as no evidence was let in by the
plaintiffs to substantiate their claim. The observations made by both the
Courts below do not warrant any interference and the remedy of the
plaintiffs lies elsewhere.
10.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
28.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mtl
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
To
1.The I Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Villupuram.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.R.P.No.2277 of 2021
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
