Madras High Court
Pushpam vs The District Superintendent Of Police on 29 August, 2018
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 29.08.2018 Reserved on : 16.08.2018 Pronounced on : 29.08.2018 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Second Appeal (MD)No.428 of 2010 Pushpam ... Appellant Vs 1.The District Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai Town and Post, Pudukkottai District. 2.Tamil Nadu Police Housing Association, rep.by Chairman, Pudukkottai Town & Post, Pudukkottai District. 3.Marimuthu Gounder 4.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the District Collector, Pudukkottai Town & Post, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.151 of 2007 dated 18.04.2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.28 of 2005 dated 04.07.2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai. !For Appellant : Mr.K.Baalasundharam ^For R1 & R4 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah, Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Dispensed with vide order dated 17.12.2012. For R2 : Paper publication effected. :JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2005 is the appellant herein. The plaintiff, Pushpam, had filed O.S.No.28 of 2005 before the Principal District Munisf Court, Pudukottai, seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction from interfering with the her peaceful possession. The suit had been filed against the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, the Tamil Nadu Police Quarters Association, Pudukottai, Marimuthu Sons and the District Collector, Pudukkottai.
2.It is the case of the plaintiff that she had purchased the property on 20.07.2001. It had been further stated that the second and third defendants had constructed quarters for the police and in that process, they had put up a compound wall within the property of the plaintiff.
3. In the written statement, the defendants had stated that they had put up the compound wall within their lands, when quarters were built for the police to protect the lands. They stated that they had no intention of interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. They did not deny the title of the plaintiff.
4. This suit came up for consideration before the Principal District Munsif Court, Pudukottai. Two issues were framed:
(i) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to for the relief of declaration and consequential injunction?
(ii) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?
5.The plaintiff examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs. A1 to A17. The defendants did not examine any witness and did not file any document in the course of the judgment. The trial Court found that the compound wall had been constructed by the defendants, even before the institution of the suit. It was also found that the defendants had no intention to deny the title of the plaintiff or to interfere with the possession. Under these circumstances, the trial Court, after holding that the plaintiff does not have any cause of action, dismissed the suit.
6. The plaintiff then filed A.S.No.151 of 2007 before the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai. This came up for consideration on 18.04.2009 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The second appeal had been preferred against the said Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court.
7.At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following five substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:-
?(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration when the title deed its validity has not been specifically denied by the defendant as contemplated under order VIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code?
(ii). Whether cause of action for a suit is confined only to the ''cause of action'' specifically stated in the plaint within the meaning of section 20 of Civil Procedure Code?
(iii). Whether judgments of the both Courts are sustainable when documentary evidences were not at all considered?
(iv). Whether the judgments of both Courts below are sustainable when the prayer of the plaint has been misread by both courts?
(V). Whether framing of issues on the basis of pleadings are mandatory within the meaning of order 14 of C.P.C.??
8.. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr.K.Baalasundharam learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and fourth respondents. The endorsement was made dispensing with the third respondent and paper publication had been effected on second respondent.
9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant had not questioned the title of the appellant and they have not denied the title of the appellant. It was also pointed out that the cause of action would imply a bundle of facts, and it was pointed out that both the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court had dismissed the case of the plaintiff stating that there was no cause of action.
10. It was also pointed out that the issues have not been framed on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties. The Learned Additional Government Pleader apearing for the respondents stated that the respondents never hadp any intention to interfere with the possession of the appellant. They also did not deny the title of the appellant. It had been stated that the entire exercise was in futility.
11.In the present case, the appellant claimed that she had purchased the suit property from one Eswari by sale deed dated 20.07.2001, Eswari had purchased the property from one Manickam. Manickam, the original owner also had Patta in his name and he had also built a house in the suit property. The Courts below relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. It is pertinent to point out that the defendants did not deny the title of the plaintiff. They also stated that they have no intention to interfere with her possession. It was also pointed out that the compound wall had been constructed even before the institution of the suit.
12. Order VIII Rule 3 CPC of a Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:-
?Denial to be specific:-
It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.?
13.In Sheikh Abdual Sattar Vs. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 479), it had been held as follows:-
0.8, R.3 : ''According to the law of pleadings, the defendant is bound to deal specifically with each allegation of fact, the truth of which is not admitted. It certain para in the plaint is merely not admitted but the facts therein are not specifically dealt with, it cannot be said that they are denied. Where the truth of the facts alleged in the plaint, though not specifically dealt with in the corresponding para of the written statement were dealt with in the additional pleadings, held, the allegations in the plaint must be considered to have been traversed?.
14.In Bond Food Products Private Ltd. and another Vs. M/s. Planters Airways Lt. (2004(4) CTC page-103),it had been held as follows:-
''13.3. The term ?cause of action? used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure denotes the whole bundle of materials facts based on which plaintiffs the relief as prayed for. The term ?cause of action?, therefore, indicates not a piece of evidence on events, but it is a bundle of events. It has no relation to the evidence set up by the defendant nor it depends upon the character of the relief prayed for''.
15.In Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 2001 SC 416), it had been held as follows:-
''In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in ?cause of action?.
16. It is seen that in the instant case, the defendants in the written statement had stated as follows:-
''.....,e;jg; gpujpthjp j';fSf;F xJf;fg;gl;Ls;s ,lj;jpy; rhpahd tp!;jPuzj;jpy; fhk;gt[z;l; Rth; vLj;Js;shh;fs;/ nkw;go jhth brhj;Jf;fSk; fhk;gt[z;l; Rth; vLj;Js;s ,lj;jpw;Fk; rk;ge;jkpy;iy/ nkYk; ,e;j gpujpthjp j';fs; FoapUg;g[f;F ghJfhg;ghf ,Uf;f ntz;o fhk;gt[z;l; Rth; vGg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/ jhthr; brhj;jpy; ,e;j gpujpthjp ve;jtpj fhk;gt[z;l; Rth; VJk; fl;ltpy;iy. jhthr; brhj;jpy; ve;jtpj fl;Lkhdj;ija[k;
,g;gpujpthjp ,of;ft[kpy;iy. jhthr; brhj;jpid ,oj;JtpLtjhf mr;RWj;jpajhf brhy;tJ jtW/ ,e;j tHf;fpw;F tHf;FK:yk; vJt[kpy;iy//////''
17. The defendants specifically stated that they have no intention to interfere with the possession of plaintiff. They have also not challenged the title of the plaintiff in their written statement. However, the plaintiff had a reasonable apprehension that the defendants would interfere with her possession. She, therefore, filed the case. The fact that they did not have any intention of interfering with the possession of the plaintiff or had no intention to challenge her title, came to be known only in the written statement.
18. Consequently, that undertaking should have been recorded by the Courts below. The suit of the plaintiff cannot be brushed away, only because the defendants stated that they have no intention to interfere with possession. If they had no intention to interfere with possession, then injunction automatically follows. Similarly, if they had no intention to challenge title, then declaration of title automatically follows. However, the plaintiff must prove title independently. In the present case, the plaintiff had produced Ex.A1, which is the Patta stands in the name of the original title holder, Manickam, dated 30.09.1994. She also produced kist receipts paid by Manickam, as Exs.A1 to A9. Thereafter, she also filed the sale deed conveying the property to Eswari by Manickam dated 27.09.2000. The plaintiff also filed Ex. A11, the property tax receipt paid by Eswari. The plaintiff also filed the sale deed in her name, dated 20.07.2001. She also filed the Water and Electricity Tax receipts paid by Eswari as Exs. A13 to A17.
19. Very Unfortunately, the Courts below had not even thought it fit to examine these documents. The suit of the plaintiff had been brushed away, by merely stating that there is no cause of action, as in the plaint. With respect to the cause of action, it had been specifically stated that there was threat of demolition of compound wall on 05.02.2005. Even otherwise, as stated in the judgment referred above, the cause of action is bundle of issues on facts and on law. These reasons compel me to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant.
20. Consequently, the second appeal is allowed and the Judgment and Decree of both the courts below are reversed and O.S.No.28 of 2005 is decreed. No costs.
To,
1.The Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.
2.The District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai.
3.The District Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai Town and Post, Pudukkottai District.
4.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Police Housing Association, Pudukkottai Town & Post, Pudukkottai District.
5.The District Collector, Pudukkottai Town & Post, Pudukkottai District.
.