Madras High Court
Deivasigamani Sadhavarthi Trust vs S.Srinivasan on 26 September, 2023
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.4177 of 2020
Deivasigamani Sadhavarthi Trust,
rep. by its Managing Trustee P.Girija
W/o.Late Parthiban
No.8/A, Manali Estate, Pudupalayam,
Cuddalore - 1. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.S.Srinivasan
2.S.Kannan (Died)
3.Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited,
No.1, Ranganathan Garden,
1/2, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar,
Chennai - 600 040.
4.A.R.Dhamodara Mudaliar
5.Meenakshi
6.Kavitha Kannan
7.Iswarya Kannan
8.Minor Soundharya Kannan
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
9.Minor Parameswar Kannan
10.Andal Damodaran
11.Aswath Narayan
12.Sathyanarayanan
13.Kalpana Sabanayagam ... Respondents
(Respondents 5 to 9 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R2 viz.,
S.Kannan vide Court order dated 23.01.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.872,
874 and 877 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.777 of 2020 by VBSJ. Respondents 8
and 9 Minor represented by mother and natural guardian R6 Kavitha
Kannan)
(Respondents 10 to 13 brought on record as LRs of the Respondent 4
viz., A.R.Dhamodara Mudaliar vide Court order dated 08.08.2023
made in C.M.P.Nos.904 to 906 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.777 of 2020 by
VLNJ)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the order and decreetal
order dated 07.08.2019 made in I.A.No.52 of 2019 in O.S.No.119 of
2003 on the file of the Court of the Ist Additional Sub Judge,
Cuddalore.
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Manoharan,
Senior counsel
For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
1 and 2
For Respondent 3: Mr.O.S.Karthikeyan
**********
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order
and decreetal order dated 07.08.2019 made in I.A.No.52 of 2019 in
O.S.No.119 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Ist Additional Sub
Judge, Cuddalore.
2. A third party is the civil revision petitioner. O.S.No.119 of
2003 has a chequered history. The respondents 1 and 2 are the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.119 of 2003. They presented a suit against the 3rd
and 4th respondents. According to respondents 1 and 2, the property
originally belonged to Deivasigamani Sadhavarthi trust. The
property was purchased by them pursuant to a judgment and decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
in O.S.No.14 of 1997 under the provisions of the Public Trust Act on
06.08.1999. According to them, the property had been leased out to
defendants therein and consequently, they filed a suit for ejectment.
3. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that the
plaintiffs do not have title. This judgment was rendered on
30.08.2005, against which the first appeal was preferred in A.S.No.02
of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-
II, Cuddalore. By judgment dated 15.02.2010, the said first appeal
was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 and 2
preferred the Second Appeal in S.A.No.680 of 2011. The second
appeal came up for disposal before this Court on 06.11.2017. At the
time of disposal, this Court held as follows:
"11. Since there is material irregularity in
deciding a non issue, without giving opportunity to
the parties to adduce evidence, a clear miscarriage of
justice had occasioned. Further, while deciding the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
issue of delivery of possession, it is unnecessary to
go into the validity of the decree passed by the
Court, which has attained finality and also the
validity of the title which is an admitted fact by the
contesting respondents. Therefore also, this Court
is inclined to set aside the order impugned in this
Second Appeal.
12. In such circumstances, this Court,
without going into the other aspects on merits, set
aside the decree and judgment passed by the Courts
below and remits the matter to the Trial Court for
being tried afresh by framing suitable issues. The
Trial Court is further directed to complete the trial
within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order."
4. On the basis of the order passed by this Court, O.S.No.119 of
2003 stood restored on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court,
Cuddalore. In these proceedings, the civil revision petitioner wanted
to implead itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
5. The said application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court
in and by way of an order dated 07.08.2019. Challenging the same,
the present revision petition has been filed.
6. I heard Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned senior counsel appearing
for Mr.K.P.Jotheeswaran and Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.D.Ravichandran.
7. Mr.T.P.Manoharan would submit
(i) that the decree, on the basis of which the property was
purchased in O.S.No.14 of 1997 on the file of the District Court is a
nullity because the proceedings were initiated in July and the entire
proceedings, concluded by August.
(ii) Pointing out the tearing hurry in the disposal of the
proceedings, he would question the jurisdiction of the District Court
to grant decree and thereby plead the decree is a nullity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
(iii) He submits that this Court has to exercise its parens patriae
jurisdiction and permit the Trust to implead in the present suit.
8. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent submit, all these submissions are beyond the scope of the
application to implead and he would submit that these pleadings
were taken in O.S.No.52 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District
Judge, Cuddalore and that suit was dismissed for default.
9. In response Mr.T.P.Manoharan would submit that they have
taken out an application for restoration of the suit in O.S.No.52 of
2014.
10. The issue that have to be considered in the present
application is whether the trust is a proper and necessary party in
O.S.No.119 of 2003. This Court in Second appeal has held that in a
suit for ejectment, the question of title is alien. It has specifically held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
that the decree has been set aside and the issue on validity of the title,
which is an admitted fact between the parties to the suit cannot be
gone into in this proceeding. It has held that title is a non issue in
this suit. If I were to permit the impleading of the trust and permit it
to raise the issue of title, I would be indirectly re-writing the
judgment in S.A.No.680 of 2011.
11. Furthermore in a suit for ejectment, the presence of a third
party is totally unnecessary. In an ejectment suit against a tenent,
title is not a question. The only issue is whether the plaintiff as a
landlord is entitled to possession of the property from the tenant.
12. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner in this proceedings
which is not based on the question of title but on the relationship of
the landlord and tenant, is not necessary. Whatever remedy the
petitioner has, it has to be worked out in O.S.No.52 of 2014 on the file
of the Additional District Judge, Cuddalore. In case the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
succeeds in the suit, all the consequence which arise out of the said
proceedings will follow including taking of possession of the suit
property from the plaintiff in the present suit.
13. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.777 of 2020 is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.4177 of 2020 is closed.
26.09.2023
rna/shl
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The Ist Additional Sub Judge,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J,
rna/shl
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.4177 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.777 of 2020
26.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
