Madras High Court
G.Angamuthu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 December, 2012
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-12-2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.28458 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1. G.Angamuthu 2. A.Thiruppurasundari .. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to the Home Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 5. 2. The Superintendent of Police Land Grabbing Special Cell Office of the Superintendent of Police Namakkal. 3. The Inspector of Police Land Grabbing Special Cell Office of the Superintendent of Police Namakkal. 4. M.Ganesan .. Respondents (Cause title amended as per the order of the Court dated 4.12.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No. 28458 of 2012) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from taking any cognizance of any complaint whatsoever in any form, either from the fourth respondent or any one in his or through his name, in any manner pertaining to their ownership and possession of their property bearing Door Nos. 218-A and 218-B, Main Road, Namakkal, under the guise and garb of Land Grabbing or any other phraseology. (Prayer amended as per order of the Court dated 4.12.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No. 28458 of 2012) For Petitioner :- Mr.S.Subbiah For Respondents :- Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Govt. Pleader (R1 to R3) Mr.D.Shivakumaran (R4) O R D E R
The land and buildings situated in Survey No. 535/7 in Namakkal Town originally belonged to one Sri Ahobila Muttt. The said Mutt instituted the suit in O.S.No. 329 of 1983 before the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, against the fourth respondent seeking for declaration and possession of the suit property. Both the first petitioner and second petitioner purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed. The second petitioner was also made as second plaintiff in the said suit based on the preaches made by her.
2. The suit in O.S.No.329 of 1983 was contested by the fourth respondent. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 27.9.1990. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 48 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal which came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 12.8.1991. Challenging the same, the fourth respondent preferred second appeal in S.A.No. 1509 of 1991 before this court and the same was dismissed on 25.7.1997. An execution application was filed by the second petitioner and the same was ordered. The second petitioner got possession of the property in the occupation of the 4th respondent delivered over to her through court and the delivery effected was recorded by the executing Court and the fourth respondent was evicted from the said property through process of the Court.
3. While that being so, the fourth respondent again instituted a suit in O.S.No.217 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal claiming the relief as if he was in possession of the property without referring to the earlier proceedings stated above and also the factum of delivery of the suit property through the Court. He managed to get an order of interim injunction in I.A.No. 529 of 1998 on 15.4.1998.
4. The petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.Nos. 1537 and 1674 of 1998 as against the grant of interim injunction and also to strike down the plaint. This Court after notice to the fourth respondent by common order allowed both the Civil Revision Petitions and struck down the plaint and imposed the cost of Rs.3,000/-upon the fourth respondent. Though the fourth respondent received the notice, he stayed away from appearing before this Court. The fourth respondent failed to pay the cost imposed by this Court.
5. However, the fourth respondent filed another suit in O.S.No. 219 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif , Namakkal with the same set of allegations as made in O.S.No. 217 of 1998. This time also the fourth respondent managed to get an order of interim injunction by order dated 27.4.2001 in I.A.No.446 of 2001 suppressing all the aforesaid proceedings and the order of this Court dated 14.11.2000 passed in C.R.P.Nos. 1537 and 1674 of 1998. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos.1540 and 1559 of 2001 as against the interim order and also to strike down the plaint in O.S.No. 219 of 2001. The Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos.1540 and 1559 of 2001 were allowed by this court by a common order dated 28.3.2003 and the fourth respondent was imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- and this cost was also not paid by the fourth respondent.
6. While things stood thus, the fourth respondent made a complaint dated 24.1.2012, as if the petitioners grabbed the lands from the fourth respondent and the petitioners were described as land grabbers. Though the third respondent did not register F.I.R, called upon the petitioners for enquiry based on the aforesaid complaint. At this juncture, the writ petitioners have approached this court seeking for a direction to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from taking cognizance of any complaint whatsoever in any form in respect of the ownership and possession of the property bearing Door Nos.218-A and 218-B , Main Road, Namakkal under the guise of land grabbing or otherwise.
7. The fourth respondent though appeared has not chosen to file any counter affidavit.
8. The third respondent filed a counter stating that the complaint was closed on 9.11.2012. Para 38 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder.
"I respectfully submit that on the basis of the complaint given on the side of the 4th respondent all the records were perused by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Since the above matter includes serious civil issues the matter was sent to the Additional Director of Prosecution for granting of legal opinion whether any offence is made out in this matter as mentioned in the complaint. After perusal of all the records, the learned Additional Director of Prosecution has opined that since the declaratory relief was granted by the competent civil court and the patta appeal has to be preferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer and no prima facie offence is made out as per the complaint in this matter to register FIR under the land grabbing wing against this petitioners 1.G.Angamuthu and 2.A.Tiruppurasundari. As per the above opinion the complaint was also closed on 9.11.2012. Hence the writ petition may be dismissed. "
9. The action of the fourth respondent has to be condemned in clear terms. He has abused the process of this court more than once. Since he made a complaint, the petitioners were forced to file Crl.O.P.No. 6354 of 2012 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking for a direction to the Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station not to harass them. The said petition was disposed of by this court directing the first respondent therein viz., the Inspector of Police, Namakkal Town Police Station, Namakkal not to harass the petitioners in relation to their ownership and possession of their properties, without due process of law.
10. As stated above, the fourth respondent abused the process of this court more than once and instituted one suit after another suppressing the same and this Court on more than one occasions struck down the plaints as stated above.
11. In T.ARIVANDANDAM VS. T.V.SATYAPAL AND ANOTHER [1977 (4) SCC 467] the Apex Court condemned the abuse of process of Court . This case was an extreme case wherein the Apex Court found that the party was persistently resorting to frivolous and vexatious litigations. In the said case, the father of the petitioner contested an eviction proceeding. He lost it and he appealed against it and there also, he lost. He moved a revision that was summarily rejected by the High Court of Karnataka. While rejecting the revision, the High Court granted six months time to vacate the premises. He moved an application for extension of time to vacate the premises. When the proceeding initiated by the father of the petitioner came to an end, as stated above, the petitioner therein filed a suit before the Fourth Additional First Munsif Court, Bangalore, seeking for a declaration that the order of eviction that was confirmed by the High Court was obtained by fraud and collusion. He sought an injunction against the execution of the eviction order. When this fact was brought to the notice of the High Court during the hearing of the petition seeking extension of time to vacate the premises, the High Court, instead of frowning upon the fraudulent action, took pity on the tenant and persuaded the landlord to give more time for vacating the premises, on the basis that the suit newly filed, would be withdrawn by the petitioner. By this, five months time was scored. The father and son belied the hope of the High Court. They adopted another method by filing a new suit before another Munsif, making a carbon copy of the earlier plaint. They were able to secure injunction order. When the entire fact was brought to the notice by the learned counsel, the injunction order was vacated. An appeal was carried without success. The petitioner came to High Court in revision and managed to get injunction again. When the application to vacate the injunction was listed before a learned Judge, the petitioner objected the matter being heard by him. The learned Judge rejected the same and vacated the interim order. The matter was taken to the Apex Court. In the said circumstances, the Apex Court held that the plaint shall have been rejected at the earliest under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. as it was totally a vexatious litigation. In my view, this judgment squarely applies to the present case on hand.
12. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and also the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only ) which shall be paid by the fourth respondent to the writ petitioners. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed.
krr/ To
1. The Secretary to the Home Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 5.
2. The Superintendent of Police Land Grabbing Special Cell Office of the Superintendent of Police Namakkal.
3. The Inspector of Police Land Grabbing Special Cell Office of the Superintendent of Police Namakkal