Madras High Court
Mohan (Died) : 1St vs Incorporated & Unincorporated on 7 April, 2025
SA(MD)No.80 of 2004
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 07/04/2025
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
SA(MD)No.80 of 2004
1.Mohan (Died) : 1st Appellant/
Respondent/Defendant
2.A.Swarna
3.M.V.Priya
4.M.Vignesh : Appellants 2 to 4/
LR.s of the deceased
Sole Appellant
(Appellants 2 to 4 are brought
on record as LR.s of the deceased
Sole Appellant, vide Court order,
dated 30/09/2024 made in CMP(MD)
Nos.12787, 12789, 12791 of 2024
in SA(MD)No.80 of 2004,)
Vs.
Incorporated & Unincorporated
Devaswom, Suchindrum,
represented by its Executive Officer/
Deputy Commissioner,
Suchindrum, Suchindrum Village,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District : Respondent/Appellant/
Plaintiff
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree
made in AS No.119 of 2003, dated 10/02/2004 on the file
of the District Court of Kanyakumari District at
Nagercoil, reversing the judgment and decree made in OS
No.151 of 1999, dated 10/03/2003 on the file of the 1st
Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
SA(MD)No.80 of 2004
For Appellants : Mr.M.Dennis Joe
For Respondent : Mr.H.Thayumanswamy
for Mr.D.Hari
J U D G M E N T
This second appeal is filed against the judgment and
decree passed in AS No.119 of 2003, dated 10/02/2004
passed by the District Court, Kanyakumari District at
Nagercoil, reversing the judgment and decree passed in OS
No.151 of 1999, dated 10/03/2003 by the 1st Additional Sub
Court, Nagercoil.
2.The plaint averments:-
The plaintiff is the owner of the property mentioned
in the plaint. The agricultural land yielding two paddy
crops per year. The defendant came into possession of the
property by oral lease and agreed to pay 4,700 Liters of
paddy per year. Later, it was reduced to 25:75. As per
that calculation, the defendant is bound to pay 2,625
Liters of paddy per year. The defendant was not regular
in the payment of rent. The total arrear comes to 35,840
Liters of paddy between Fasli 1390 and 1407. The market
value of the paddy is calculated at the rate of Rs.350/-.
For 150 Liters, the total amount comes around
Rs.83,627/-. Notice was issued to the defendant demanding
payment of the lease amount. But the defendant failed to
pay the same. Hence, the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
3.The statement:-Originally, the defendant's husband
took the plaint schedule items I and II on lease. He was
continuing as lessee. After the death of her husband, she
inherited the leasehold right and continuing as a tenant.
The Schedule 3rd item is not in the possession of the
defendant. The defendant was liable to pay the rent of
Rs.687.50/- at the rate of 25%. Till the Fasali year
1407, she paid. The calculation of the market value of
per liter paddy is wrong. The Schedule 3rd item of the
property is in possession of Parameswaran Pilli. In the
written statement itself, the payment of lease is
mentioned. According to the statement, she has paid
16,650/- liters in excess of the agreed paddy. Apart from
that, it is also stated that the suit is barred by
limitation.
4.On the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the trial court:-
(1)Whether the plaintiff is
entitled to recover the amount from the
defendant as prayed in the plaint?
(2)To what other relief, the
plaintiff is entitled to?
5.On the side of the plaintiff, one witness was
examined and 2 documents marked. On the side of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
defendant, one witness was examined and 38 documents were
marked.
6.At the conclusion of the trial process, the trial
court dismissed the suit with cost. Against which, appeal
was preferred by the plaintiff before the appellate court
namely the District Judge, Kanyakumari, in AS No.119 of
2003. The appellate court differed from the judgment and
decree of the trial court finding that the defendant is
bound to pay the lease amount quantifying at Rs.35,466/-
with interest at the rate of 12% and decreed the suit.
7.Against which, this second appeal is preferred.
8.At the time of admission, the following
substantial questions of law were framed:-
(1)Whether the judgment of the
lower appellate court is in accordance
with the mandatory provisions of Order
41, Rule 31 C.P.C?
(2)Is not the judgment of the lower
appellate court vitiated especially when
the Executive Officer was not competent
person to institute the suit or appeal
or any legal proceedings as he has not
been assigned with the power to do so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
under Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu H.R &
C.E. Act, 1959?
(3)Whether the lower appellate
court is right in holding that the suit
is not barred by limitation relying upon
Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. &
C.E. Act 1959 especially when the suit
properties are admittedly of Devaswom
properties covered under Schedule II of
Section 2(IX) of the Act 22 of 1959 and
the income there on are Devaswom Funds
governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu
(Transferred) Incorporation and
Unincorporated Devaswoms Act, 1959?
(4)Has not the lower appellate
court erred in granting interest at the
rate of 12% p.a. on the principal amount
even after the decree till realization
which is contrary to Section 34 C.P.C?
9.Heard both sides.
10.A simple suit on the basis of the arrears of
payment of lease amount by the defendant. As per the
plaint averments, the total quantified rupee value of the
lease is Rs.83,627/-. The total due was estimated as
Rs.35,466/- by the appellate Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
11.That plea was rejected by the trial court stating
and finding that the defendant is liable to pay only 25%
(ghl;lj;bjhif), that was entirely paid by him in view of
the receipts under Exs.B1 to B23. Apart from that, the
trial court has also took into account the reply notice
sent by the defendant, by which she undertook to pay the
balance amount if any. On that account, it was decided
that the defendant was not liable to pay any arrears
amount as mentioned in the plaint.
12.But the appellate court recorded a contra finding
regarding the arrears and accepted the plea of the
plaintiff that Exs.B1 to B23 were taken into account from
the claim amount. The balance amount on the date of
appeal was quantified at Rs.35,466/- and accepting that
plea, the appellate court granted decree for Rs.35,466/-
and imposed 12% interest from the date of the plaint and
till the date of realization.
13.A detailed report was called for from the trial
court, wherein it was submitted before this court that
periodically the amounts are being deposited in the
Court. Those amounts were deposited in the fixed deposit
scheme. The date of decree by the appellate court is
10/02/2004. The defendant started depositing the amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
from 09/03/2005. As on 07/04/2024, the total amount
deposited was Rs.2,47,890/-. The earned interest as per
the statement on it is Rs.4,44,879/-. So, this clearly
shows that the defendant is continuously depositing the
rent. The plaintiff can deduct those amounts. Since the
decreed amount itself has been completely satisfied by
way of deposit, now the appeal becomes infructuous.
Since the deposits earned interest, the appellant are not
liable to pay the interest for the arrear amount of
Rs.35,466/-. More-over, the appellate court has also
committed an error in granting decree of interest at the
rate of 12% from the date of plaint, till the date of
realization. If at all, it can grant from the date of
decree at the rate of 6% per annum as per section 34 of
C.P.C. To that extent only, the appellate court judgment
requires to be modified. But, as stated above, the claim
amount in the plaint itself is exceeds the deposited
amount with the accrued interest.
14.But the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has filed a calculation memo stating that for
25 years and 11 months, the total amount of interest
comes to Rs.1,10,623/- between the period 30/04/1999 and
30/03/2025. He calculated the total arrears amount as
Rs.8,54,243/- from 01/07/1999 till 30/06/2025. But this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
cannot be taken into account at this stage. It is for the
respondent to take steps in this regard, but of course,
subject to the deposit made by the appellants.
15.As mentioned above, the deceased 1st appellant
started depositing the amount from 09/03/2005. On that
date, he deposited Rs.25,000/-. Then on 28/03/2005, he
deposited Rs.23,687/-. The lodgement schedule is not
available and it is upto the parties to very the
lodgement schedule. But, as mentioned above, the
appellants are not liable to pay the interest at the rate
of 12% p.a from the date of decree. It is reduced to 6%
as mentioned above.
16.To that extent, the second appeal is liable to be
allowed modifying the decree and judgment of the
appellate court.
17.So, the substantial questions of law need not be
answered in the light of the above said development.
Since the appellants herein admitting the right of the
plaintiff to initiate proceedings in the civil court for
the realization of such arrears, started depositing the
lease amount. So, the substantial questions of law do not
arise and answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
18.With the above said modification of the judgment
and decree of the appellate court, this second appeal is
partly allowed. No costs.
07/04/2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The District Judge,
Kanyakumari District at
Nagercoil.
2.The 1st Additional Sub Judge,
Nagercoil.
3.The Section Officer,
VR/ER Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
07/04/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 02:55:50 pm )
