Madras High Court
V.Sivaraman vs The Chairman on 30 June, 2023
S.A.No.512 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A.No.512 of 2022
and CMP.No.10340 of 2022
1.V.Sivaraman
2.V.Thirunavukkarasu .. Plaintiffs / Appellants / Appellants
Vs
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Chennai - 600 006.
2.T.Subramani
3.Bharathi .. Respondents / Respondents /
Defendants
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, praying to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2021 made in A.S.No.277 of
2018 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2017 made in
O.S.No.13326/2010 on the file of XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai
and allow this appeal.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.512 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.B.Sekar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Rajesh for R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs who have lost their suit successively both before the trial
Court in O.S.No.13326 of 2010 and before the first appellate Court in
A.S.No.277 of 2018, are the appellants herein. Parties would be referred to
by their rank before the trial Court.
2. The plaintiffs have laid a suit claiming right over an extent of 970 sq.ft.,
in T.S.No.48/2 correlated to Old S.No.83/1 in Saidapet, Chennai. Their
allegations is that the first defendant while allotting lands to the second and
third defendants, had included part of the property belonging to the
appellants/plaintiffs. Indeed, the appellants had earlier instituted
O.S.No.7316/1997 against the first defendant, not to disturb their peaceful
possession of property in S.No.83/1 as described above. That suit was
decreed, and subsequent thereto, the first defendant had sold a plot
measuring 1,502 sq.ft., in Plot No.78 to the second and third defendants /
second and third respondents herein, and that these defendants were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.512 of 2022
arrayed as parties in that suit.
3. In the written statement, the defendants 2 and 3 essentially contend that
they were allotted Plot No.78, and that the plaintiffs are attempting to
dispossess them.
4.1 The dispute went to trial, before which, both sides adduce oral and
documentary evidence. For the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as
P.W.1 and through whom, Ext.A1 to Ext.A11 were marked. On the
defendants' side, the second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and through
whom as many as 23 documents were marked as Ext.D1 to Ext.D23.
4.2 On appreciating the evidence before it, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred the first appeal in
A.S.No.277 of 2018 before the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai,
which vide its judgment dated 07.10.2021 has also come to the same
conclusion and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal at the
instance of the plaintiffs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.512 of 2022
5. The appeal is admitted for considering the following substantial questions
of law :
a) Whether the decree of injunction granted on 31.10.2000 made
in O.S.No7316 of 1997 against the first respondent herein is
binding on the second and third respondents, claimed title from
first respondent?
b) Whether Sec.65 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and
Area Act overrides general law and the decree granted by the
competent civil Court in accordance with law?
c) Whether the first defendant have right title over the land in
Survey No.83/1?
d) Whether the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour
of the other defendants in respect of land in Survey No.83/3
can claim right, title or possession over the property in Survey
No.83/1?
6. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the second and third
defendant made a fair statement on instructions that these defendants are not
entitled to any property other than Plot No.78, and that the plaintiffs'
property lies elsewhere, and the same is not a part of the property allotted to
these defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.512 of 2022
7. Heard both sides. In effect, the defendants have not disputed over the
plaintiffs' title and possession to the property that they claim under Ext.A5,
sale deed dated 15.03.1973 , and another sale deed of the year 1953, in
S.No.83/1. Indeed, this was indicated even in the written statement. In
view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and
3, nothing survives for consideration in this second appeal. And, no
substantial questions herein above framed, requires any point for
consideration.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the respondents 2 and 3 are
injuncted from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs vis-a-vis their
property in S.No.83/1. The learned counsel for the appellants also
undertakes that the plaintiffs/appellants will not interefere with the
possession of the defendants 2 and 3 vis-a-vis property in Plot.No.78, which
they have obtained under Ext.A3 sale deed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
ds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.512 of 2022
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
To:
1.The XVI Additional Judge
City Civil Court
Chennai.
2.The XVII Assistant Judge
City Civil Court
Chennai.
3.The Section Officer
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
S.A.No.512 of 2022
30.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
