Madras High Court
Madras Race Club vs Jayapoorna Chandra Rao on 9 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 13.06.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 9.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
and
C.M.P. Nos.6429 & 6824 of 2024
Madras Race Club,
Represented by its
Additional Secretary
V.R.Shrinivaasan
Guindy, Chenai – 600 032 ... Petitioner / Revision Petitioner
in both CRPs
Vs.
1.Jayapoorna Chandra Rao
2.Aruna Devi
3.Jaganatha Pandian
4.Jayasimha Pandian
5.Gopal
6.M/s.Bay Oriental Reality Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. By its Director,
Dr.Saleem Ibrahim Brothers
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
7.Sri Venkatachalapathy Nagar Welfare Association
Represent by its Secretary,
Vadapalani Andavar Street,
Valaasaravakkam
8.Sasan Chemicals Limited
21. Gopala Krishna Road,
T.nagar, Chennai – 600 017 ... Respondents / Respondents
in both CRPs
Page No.1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the order of dismissal dated
24.01.2024 in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023 respectively in
O.S.No.11761 of 2010 passed by the learned XVII Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Babu
For Mr.T.Balaji
(in both cases)
For R1 : Mr.N.S.Sivakumar
(in both cases)
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is
one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. Earlier, the Petitioner / Plaintiff filed a Suit in C.S.No.366 of
2004 before this Court, for the relief of permanent injunction, and this
Court transferred the same to the file of the learned XVII Additional
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on the point of enhancement of
pecuniary jurisdiction and the same was renumbered as
O.S.No.11761 of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
3. The Petitioner / Plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application in
I.A.No.07 of 2023 in O.S.No.11761 of 2010 under Order XIV Rule 5
r/w Section 151 of CPC., to strike down the additional issues framed
by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on
12.06.2023. Further, the Petitioner filed an Application in I.A.No.08 of
2023 under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC., to claim Judgment on alleged
admission from the written statement without waiting for
determination of questions in controversy in the Suit without letting
evidence. The learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai, dismissed the above Applications. Aggrieved over the same,
the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.
4. Mr.K.V.Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
/ Plaintiff would submit that, if at all the 1st Respondent is seeking for
recovery of possession, he should have resorted to file a separate suit
for recovery of possession or otherwise should have filed a counter
claim with a cause of action and payment of necessary court fees for
such recovery of possession. The Court below ought not to have
appreciated the Memo filed by the 1st respondent seeking to frame
additional issues touching upon the title of the property, when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
Suit is for a bare injunction. The Court below ought not to have
concluded that the present Applications filed after lapse of 19 years
and written statement of 1st Defendant was filed after a period of 18
years during 2022 and when the additional issues framed only on
22.06.2023. The trial Judge is wrong in gone into the issue of
maintainability of the Suit on the ground that the suit is not par with
the Pecuniary Jurisdiction, when the application is filed only for the
purpose of striking off the additional issues which framed after a
period of 19 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support
of his contentions, has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Karan Kapoor Vs. Madhuri Kumar reported in (2022) 10
SCC 496; Uttam Singh Dugal and CoLtd. Vs. Union Bank of
India reported in (AIR 2000 SC 2740); Jeevan Diesels and
Electricals Ltd., Vs.Jasbir Singh Chadha reported in (2010) 6
SCC 601; Parivar Seva Sansthan Vs. Veena Kalra reported in
AIR 2000 Del. 349; Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr reported in
(2012) 8 SCC 148 and Jitta Anjy Reddy Vs Ahmed Alikhan reported in
(1990) SCC OnLine AP 430.
5. Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, the learned counsel for the Respondents /
Defendants would submit that the present Revisions are filed only to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
protract the trial proceedings inspite of time limited stipulated twice
by this Court arise out of the proceedings in C.R.P.(PD)No.6 of 2014,
dated 17.02.2021 and C.R.P.No.82 of 2023, dated 13.03.2023 wherein
six months' time stipulated by this Court to complete the trial. The
Petitioner Club has no role to play when the Suit scheduled property
hit by and Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1979 and the same was repealed
in the year 1999 and the Government of Tamil Nadu did not use the
suit scheduled property for any public use hence upon the struck
down of Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Suit scheduled property vested
back to the 1st Respondent. In the year 2004, the Petitioner with a
criminal intention to grab the valuable property in the disguise of
expired lease, trespassed into the suit schedule property, obtained
orders and squatting over the suit property under the pretext of the
order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4486 of 2004, dated 17.03.2004,
constructed a compound wall and kept it as a vacant land all along
ever since lease period.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents would further submit
that the Petitioner with ill intention to grab the valuable property
violating the order of this Court in O.A.No.368 of 2004, in February
2021 tried to alter the physical features of the suit scheduled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
property, started construction in the suit scheduled property and in
that regard a complaint has been lodged by the 1st respondent. The
Petitioner deliberately prolonged the litigation and wasted the
precious time of the Courts and such a conduct deserves exemplary
costs. The learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his
contentions, has relied on the decision of this Court in
K.R.Arumugam (Died) vs. P.Semmalar reported in (2020 (3)
CTC 742) and the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Premji
Ratansey Shah and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
reported in (1994) 5 SCC 547; in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya
Singh Deo reported in (1988) 4 SCC 619 and Bhawanji
Lakhamshi and Others Vs. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Others
reported in (1972) 1 SCC 388.
7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned
counsels, the impugned order, the materials on record and the
decisions cited.
8. It is not in dispute that the property in dispute originally
belong to the father of the 1st Respondent / 1st Defendant viz.,
Vadlamannati Venkatanarayanan Rao, who purchased the vast extent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
of land admesuring 12.53 Acres comprising in S.No.76/2 & 77 part in
Velachery Village, Saidapet Taluk, through the Court auction on
10.12.1926 in a Suit in C.S.No.561 of 1924 and he was issued with a
sale certificate. The 1st Respondents's father leased out the Suit
schedule property to the Plaintiff Club on a registered Lease Deed,
dated 26.071927, originally for a period of 10 years and on the expiry
date, the lease was renewed for a further period of 10 years till 1956
and the lease was not renewed thereafter, but the Petitioner Club
remains in possession till today in the Suit schedule property. Out of
entire extent of the Property ie., 12.53 acres, 2 acres was separated
and 10.53 acres of land was auctioned in the year 1975 and registered
as Document No.1 of 1976 at SRO Chennai South Joint II.
9. On perusal of the records it is seen that from 2004 onwards
there was a dispute with regard to ownership of the property between
the petitioner and the respondents and other third parties also
claimed right over the property. The petitioner disputed the title of
the 1st Respondent, but admitted that the Petitioner has been inducted
as a tenant and he is holding right over the property. Be that as it
may, the Petitioner / Plaintiff filed I.A.No.07 of 2023 under Order XIV
Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC., to strike down the additional issues
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
framed by the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, on
12.06.2023. Further, the Petitioner filed an Application in I.A.No.08 of
2023 in O.S.No.11761 of 2010 under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC., to
claim Judgment on alleged admission from the written statement
without waiting for determination of questions in controversy in the
Suit without letting evidence. The learned XVII Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissed the above Applications. Against
which, the present Civil Revisions.
10. Further, the Petitioner claimed that he has got 99 old
leasehold right over the suit property under the right of lease by
holding over and therefore, the possession of the petitioner should not
be disturbed. From the plain reading of the written statement it is
clear that the defendants are the purchaser of the suit property in
Court auction from the lesser, and therefore, the lease must be
deemed to have come to halt. The claim and counter claim cannot
come within umbrage of unequivocal and unqualified admission upon
which the petitioner could be given a decree under Order XII Rule 6
CPC. Even this Court consider that it is an admission, much less, an
unqualified possession quo a lessee by holding over, that could not be
treated as an unqualified admission for the purpose of Order XII Rule
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
6 CPC., as the same is contentious issue and cannot be deemed tobe
conclusive admission warranting the Court to use its discretion while
granting declaratory decree under the generic provision of Section 34
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
11. In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned
Counsel, it is relevant to quote Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which reads as under:
“Judgment on admissions.-(1) Where
admissions of fact have been made either in the
pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in
writing, the court may at any stage of the suit,
either on the application of an party or of its own
motion and without waiting for the determination
of any other question between the parties, make
such Order or give such judgment as It may think
fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced
Under Sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in
accordance with the judgment and the decree shall
bear the date on which the judgment was
pronounced.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
12. A bare reading of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC would indicate that
the Court either on the application of any party or in its own motion
and without waiting for determination of any other question between
the parties proceed to give judgment as it may think fit having regard
to the clear and unequivocal admission. Such an admission in the
written statement could be in respect of entire claim made in the suit
or even for the part of the claim for which decree could be passed
separately. That it imposes duty caste on the court that the only
condition is the admission should be unequivocal, clear and positive
from the written statement. In the instant case, the status of the
Petitioner itself a question of fact and law and that question of fact
and law to be adjudicated after adducing evidence and the petitioner
who claims a decree must prove all the material facts on which he
relies in support of its claim.
13. A bare reading of the proviso to Order 8 Rule 5, very
specifically states that the Court may in its discretion require any fact
so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.
Therefore, the provision provided in CPC., on admissions,
contemplates that the court should exercise a discretion to require
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
proof, not withstanding the absence a specific denial by the
defendant. The court is equally vested with a discretion to ask for
independent corroboration of a fact not specifically denied in the
pleadings by the other party. In the instant case, the question of facts
of status is involved, so it is not proper to grant a decree without clear
proof of the fact. In the instant case the possession has been given by
the Court pursuant to the earlier orders cannot be taken as an
admitted fact regardless the possession is with the Petitioner/Plaintiff,
decree cannot be passed. The admission of fact must be culled out
from the pleading to grant a judgment on decree as envisaged under
Order 8 Rule 5 and Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC and Section 58 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the Petitioner put to strict proof
of material facts in examining the witness and documents such as
payment of lease rentals, the plea of holding over right, a previous
and subsequent possession, right to hold possession and so on.
14. Having regard to the controversy between the parties in the
present suit and material propositions of fact involved in the list,
issues were framed to adjudicate the matter. The question of striking
off the additional issues cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the
interim applications filed by the petitioners per se not maintainable in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
law. The learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, has
rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Applications. The petitioner
herein cannot be allowed to misuse the mercies of the law by filing
the Revisions and I do not find any reason to interfere with the
findings given by the trial Court.
15. In view of the forgoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions
are dismissed. Since the Suit is pending for nearly two decades, the
trial Court is directed to complete the trail and dispose of the Suit
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. It is made clear that the six month period is only an outer limit.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
09.01.2025
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
vv2 / mpk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
To
The XVII Additional Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER
IN
C.R.P.Nos.1224 & 1287 of 2024
09.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
