Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.R.Radha on 7 September, 2023
S.A. No.1172 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A. No.1172 of 2005
and
C.M.P. No. 16182 of 2005
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the District Collector,
Nagapattinam.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Sirkali. ... Appellants
Versus
1. M.R.Radha,
through rep. by his power agent
M.R.R.Ravichandran
2. Sri Chattanathaswamy Devasthanam,
Sirkali, rep. by its Trustee,
Sree-law-sree Shanmuga Desiga
Gnana Sambanda Paramachariar Swamigal,
Dharmapura Adheenam, Dharmapuram. ... Respondents
Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against
the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2003 made in O.S.No.156 of 2001 on
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No.1172 of 2005
the file of Addl. Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai , which was confirmed by the
judgment and decree made in A.S.No. 64 of 2003, dated 29.11.2003 on the
file of District Court, Nagapattinam.
For Appellants : Dr.S.Suriya,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondents : R1 - died
Mr. B.Jawahar
JUDGEMENT
Today, when the matters taken up for hearing, learned Addl.
Government Pleader for appellants appeared and submitted that they are
having sufficient documents to prove the suit property belong to State, but
on perusal of records, it would reveals that before the trial court, the 1 st
defendant/District Collector as well as the 3rd defendant temple remain
exparte. Based on that as well as by relying evidence of plaintiff alone, the
trial court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff granting relief of declaration
and permanent injunction in respect of suit property situated at Sirkali Taluk
in R.S.No.455/1, Nanjai 0.87 cents (Senkazhani odai) with four boundaries.
The learned Government Pleader for State would further submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No.1172 of 2005
because of the decree, they were not able to proceed further and they are
ready to prove their case. Hence, they prayed to remand the matter back to
the trial court.
2. Even though they have not produced any documents, being the
decree passed by the trial court, this appeal is liable to be remanded back to
the trial court. According to the appellants/defendants 1 and 2, the property
belong to State, the plaintiff is not entitled to enrich himself by abusing
process of law. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent would submit that
now the 1st respondent/plaintiff died and hence, he has no instructions. Even
otherwise, the fact remains that the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, who are
having right and title over the property. According to appellants, the suit
was decreed in favour of plaintiff, but the original documents are with the
defendants 1 and 3 and they are ready to prove their claim. So, in order to
adjudicate the issue between the parties fairly, this court is inclined to
remand the matter back to learned Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai and the trial
judge is directed to record the evidence by giving opportunity to both
parties, to complete the trial and dispose the suit as early as possible within
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No.1172 of 2005
a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
However, if any one of the party is died, the trial judge is directed to
implead his/her legal heirs and proceed with the trial afresh and dispose the
suit without influence of earlier findings. Both parties are directed to appear
before the trial court on 25.09.2023 without fail and adduce their evidence
on their side and to cooperate with the trial proceedings. Accordingly, this
Appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Sub-
Court, Mayiladuthurai. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.09.2023
rpp
To
District Judge,
Nagapattinam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No.1172 of 2005
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
S.A. No.1172 of 2005
07.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
