Madras High Court
L.Ramu @ Ramachandran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 October, 2024
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
S.A. No. 713 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A. No.713 of 2024
L.Ramu @ Ramachandran ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Collector for Chennai District,
Singaravelan Building,
Beach Road, Madras-600 001.
3. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Registration Department
by its Secretary, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
4. The Tahsildar,
Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk,
Panchavadi, Chetput, Madras-600 008.
5. The Sub-Registrar,
Virugambakkam Sub Registrar Office,
Arcot Road, Virugambakkam,
Chennai-600 093.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 713 of 2024
6. The Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority, by its Member Secretary,
CMDA Building, Egmore,
Madras – 600 008.
7. The Plan Sanctioning Officer,
CMDA Corporation of Madras,
Ripon Buildings, Poonamallee High Road,
Park Town, Madras -600 003.
8. The Corporation of Madras,
by its Commissioner,
Ripon Buildings,
Poonamallee High Road,
Park Town, Madras – 600 003.
9. Karan Construction by Guruvan Ayyavu,
No.25, 1st Avenue, Ashok Nagar,
Madras -600 083.
10. Isakki Subbiah ... Respondents
Prayer:- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against
the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2023 passed in A.S.No.65 of 2021 on
the file of III Addl. City Civil Judge at Chennai confirming the order passed
in I.A.No. 15730 of 2016 in O.S.No.3408 of 2014 on the file the III Asst.
City Civil Court Chennai dated 16.06.2022.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 713 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.T.Padmanabhan
For Respondents : Dr.S.Suriya,
Addl. Govt. Pleader (C.S.)
for R1 to R4
JUDGEMENT
Challenging the findings of the trial judge held in I.A.No.15730 of
2016 in O.S.No. 3408 of 2014, the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal.
Before the trial court, he filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the
defendants 1 to 3 to enter the name of plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit
property as prescribed in the plaint schedule at Rajamannaar Salai,
K.K.Nagar, Vijayaraghavapuram, Chennai-83 admeasuring an extent of
2400 sq.ft. against defendants 1 to 10.
2. On receipt of notice, 10th defendant filed an application to reject the
plaint stating that the suit property belong to him as per the allotment made
by Slum Clearance Board during December 1995. When the Slum Clearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Board failed to execute the sale deed i favour of him, he filed a Writ Petition
in W.P.No. 12732 of 2005 seeking for a direction and this court by an order
dated 04.05.2005 issued a direction directing the Slum Clearance Board to
execute the sale deed, but the Slum Clearance Board failed to execute the
same. Hence, he filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P. No. 287 of 2006,
wherein this court directed the Slum Clearance Board to comply the order.
Accordingly, the sale deed was executed in the year of 2007 in his favour,
based on that, he is in possession for nearly about 30 years. Indeed, the
plaintiff also claimed that he is absolute owner of the property, for which, he
has also relied the documents, which are not related to the subject property.
The plaintiff also not produced any document that he is in possession of the
property as he claimed for about 30 years and on the other hand, the 10 th
defendant is in possession of the property and flats were constructed.
Therefore, he prayed to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action arose,
so also the suit is barred by limitation. But the said application was objected
by the plaintiff by filing counter objections stating that he was in possession
for nearly about 30 years and the reasons assigned by the 10th defendant is
beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and the issue of limitation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cannot be decided, since it is a mixed question of law and on facts.
Therefore, he prayed to admit this Second Appeal.
3. On considering both side submissions, the trial judge held in respect
of limitation that he admits that it is a mixed question of law, but in respect
of property, the trial judge held that based on the plaint averments, the
documents relied on by the plaintiff, prima facie not proved that the property
belong to mother of plaintiff, whose name is totally differs from the
document as he relied as Ex.A1. Moreover, his mother name is Kaliammal,
but the plaintiff relied the suit in O.S.No.4348 of 1989, which was said to be
filed by his mother, the name of plaintiff was mentioned as Lakshmiammal.
Furthermore, the trial judge also found that there is no cause of action for
filing the suit, since because he wanted to demolish the construction made in
10000 sq.ft., but as per the description of the suit property, it is only for
2400 sq.ft. The description of property in the suit schedule has also not been
correctly furnished. Hence, there is no prima facie case that he is in
possession of property by way of adverse possession and also there is no
proof for long possession. Accordingly, there is no cause of action arose to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
file a suit. Hence, the plaint was rejected. Challenging the said findings, the
plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal.
4. Admittedly, the contention of plaintiff is that out of 10000 sq.ft., the
suit property belong to him was also been encroached by the 10th defendant
by putting up a construction. He had also claimed that nearly about 30 years,
he is in possession of the property. But, admittedly, within 10000 sq.ft. there
is four flats constructed long back by the 10th defendant and as per the
direction issued in W.P.No.12732 of 2005, the suit property was allotted to
the 10th defendant by Slum Clearance Board, thereby sale deed stands in his
name. So, as on date, the document is in force and not cancelled.
Furthermore, the description of property was not clearly defined and in the
plaint averments, he has averred that he wanted to demolish the construction
put up in 10000 sq.ft., but the description is not tallied with the original
extent. However, no document was produced on the side of plaintiff that
from the year of 1996 to till date, he was in possession of property and
nearly about 31 years, there is no document produced. So, there is no cause
of action arose to file a suit was rightly observed by the courts below, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
needs no interference. It is a settled proposition that plaint averments are
sufficient to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. Hence, I do not
find any merit as there is no question of law arise for consideration.
Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
22.10.2024
rpp
To
III Addl. Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
