Madras High Court
K.M.Nalinishree vs Mr.Bhaskar ... First on 30 April, 2010
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 30.4.2010
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
C.R.P.(PD)No.2586,2587,2588,2589,2590,2591,2592,
2593,2594,2595,2596,2597,2598 and 2599 of 2008
K.M.Nalinishree ... Petitioner in all the C.R.P.Nos.
vs.
Mr.Bhaskar ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2586 of 2008
Nirmala ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2587 of 2008
Nagaraj ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2588 of 2008
Narasimhnan ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2589 of 2008
Devaki ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2590 of 2008
Jayalakshmi @ Chandra ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2591 of 2008
P.Sainathan ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2592 of 2008
Magimai ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2593 of 2008
Venu ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2594 of 2008
Ponnusamy ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2595 of 2008
Punniyakotti ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2596 of 2008
V.Krishnamoorthy ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2597 of 2008
N.Jayakumar ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2598 of 2008
K.Raju ... first respondent in C.R.P.No.2599 of 2008
The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
The Tahsildar
Chengalput Taluk
Chengalput
The Village Administrative Officer Thazhambur Village
Thazhambur
(No relief is sought against R2 to
R4. Hence they are given-up) ... Respondents 2 to 4 all the C.R.Ps
C.R.P.No.2586 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.151 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2587 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.165 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2588 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.152 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2589 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.153 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2590 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.154 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2591 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.155 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2592 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.156 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2593 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.159 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2594 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.160 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2595 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.161 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2596 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.162 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2597 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.164 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2598 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.163 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
C.R.P.No.2599 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed against O.S.No.166 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengleput.
For petitioner : Mr.K.Chandramouli
Senior Advocate for
Mr.A.Muthukumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Rajendran for R1
in C.R.P.Nos.2586,2589,2592
to 2596, 2598 & 2599 of 2008
R2 to R4 Given up
C O M M O N O R D E R
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed stating that the suits are to be rejected, as barred by law. The filing of the suits by the plaintiffs is clearly an abuse of the process of law. The trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands, as they were never in possession of the properties, which are the subject matter of the suits. The trial Court had failed to see that the prayer in the suits, for a direction, for the issuance of pattas by the civil Courts, is barred by the Revenue Board Standing Orders.
2. The trial Court ought to have noted that the suit properties had been assigned as 'Anathinam' lands, in recognition of the meritorious service of the deceased husband of the petitioner. The court below ought to have noted that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit properties and that it was only the petitioner, who has always been in possession of the suit properties. The trial Court had failed to appreciate that the certified copy of the S.L.R. filed by the petitioner, along with the written statement, would clearly show that the survey numbers shown by the plaintiff did not co-relate to the suit properties and that there was nothing to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands described in the scheduled plaint and the extent of the properties shown therein are incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, dated 9.10.2007, made in C.R.P.(PD) No.2131 of 2007, to state that the all the suits in question are similar to the suit in respect of which this Court had passed the order, dated 9.10.2007.
3. The learned counsel for the first respondents in the civil revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos.2586,2589,2592 to 2596, 2598 & 2599 of 2008 had submitted that the first respondents in the civil revision petitions, who are the plaintiffs in the suits, had purchased the properties, during the year 1988-89. Only in the year, 1999, the lands had been assigned to the petitioner, after the plaintiffs in the suits had applied for patta, in respect of the said land, before the authorities concerned. Since, the plaintiffs were having pre-existing rights in the properties in question, the claims of the petitioner in the civil revision petitions are not sustainable. After the Tamil Nadu Inam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, had come into force, the plaintiffs' vendor, who has been cultivating the lands, should have applied for a fresh patta, under Section 64 of the said Act. Further, by way of a Government Order in G.O.1300 (Revenue Department), dated 20.4.1971. empowering the authorities to grant the patta for those persons, who are outside the scope of the Act. The Government had extended the time for obtaining the patta and the said Government order had been extended to Thazhambur Village. The said Government order had been extended by the Government of Tamil Nadu to Thazhambur Village, by way of a Government Order, in G.O.M.s.No.239 Revenue (SSI) Department, dated 19.3.1996. As such, the plaintiff ought to have been granted the patta in terms of the said Government Order.
4. It has also been stated that, in the written statement filed in the suits, the Government authorities had admitted that the plaintiffs had applied for the patta, in respect of the lands in question.
5. It has also been stated that the Civil Courts are empowered to nulify the decision of the Government authorities and therefore, the plaintiffs had filed the suits praying for such reliefs. The learned counsel had also pointed out that the petitioner cannot rely on the decision of this Court, dated 9.10.2007, made in C.R.P.(PD) No.2131 of 2007, as it had been passed without reference to another decision holding a contrary view, as in the decision reported in ENERCON (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI Vs. J.T.MICHEAL ANJALO 2005 (2) CTC 365.
6. The learned counsel had also stated that the Civil Revision Petitions are not maintainable, as some of the necessary authorities had been given up. Further, if the suits are struck off, the plaintiffs would not have any remedy and therefore, it is for the trial Court to decide the issue arising for its consideration, on merits and in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
7.1. In ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS, the Supreme Court had held that "the general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly:
Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction."
7.2. In MUTHU ELAPPA GOUNDAR Vs. DY.REGTR. OF CO.OP.SOCIETIES 1960 (2) M.L.J.392, it has been held that "the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may properly be invoked in case where the order of the subordinate Tribunal is vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record, and the impugned order quashed. The fact that there is an adequate alternative remedy cannot be a bar to the issue of a writ.
The availability of other remedies to the aggrieved party may weigh with the High Courts in refusing a writ under Article 226, but it cannot disentitle him to get the relief of preclude the Court from issuing the writ. However, convenient or expedient it may be to dismiss a writ petition before issuing a rule nisi on the ground of a subsisting alternative remedy, it may not always be just to do so at the final stage, when the parties have incurred all the expenses and the Court has gone into the matter fully."
8. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondents had relied on the decision in GANAPATHY SUBRAMANIAN Vs. S.RAMALINGAM & 23 OTHERS 2007-3-L.W.515, wherein it has been held that "Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals through out the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power, the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers under clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227 of the Constitution. It could be seen that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is administrative as well as judicial and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Curt is to clear the path of justice. Such a power of superintendence is not subject to technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters. That power so conferred cannot also be regarded as appeal or revisional jurisdiction and should not be exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and hence, the Court has devised a self imposed rule of discipline on this power. The supervisory jurisdiction can be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of defending the suit or filing an appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The Court shall have regard to the legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from the appellate or revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision.
It is not denied that the power conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary and discretionary power as distinguished from ordinary statutory power. No doubt, Article 227 of the Constitution conferred a right of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction, but no corresponding right is conferred upon the litigant to invoke the jurisdiction as a matter of right. In fact, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India casts a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior Courts and tribunals within the limits of its authority and that they do not cross the limit ensuring the performance of their duties in accordance with law conferring power within the ambit of the enactment treating such Court and Tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate Courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party.
I am of the view that the reasoning stated in the notice cannot by itself be a factor to reject the plaint by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction. If the petitioner is of the view that he is having a good case to have the plaint rejected, he would very well place the materials before the trial Court itself and seek for the required relief in his favour by placing the materials on which reliance has been placed before this Court. Above all, the trial Court has not committed any manifest error except ordering issuance of summons to defendants in the suit filed by the respondents herein.
The Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked only when the trial Court has committed any error. Mere filing of a suit by the respondents and taking the suit on the file by the trial Court cannot be regarded as an act on the part of the trial Court to transgress its jurisdiction or its bound. Of course, the party who files the suit might have filed the suit suppressing material facts or made up the suit to his convenience for seeking the relief which is not otherwise entitled to, But that facto has to be considered by the trial Court during the relevant point of time."
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present civil revision petitions.
10. The petitioners have not been in a position to show sufficient reasons for this Court to direct the trial Court to reject the plaints and to strike off the suits, as prayed for by the petitioner. It cannot be said, at this stage, that the filing of the suits amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is for the petitioner to raise the issue, regarding the maintainability of the suits, before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to decide the same, on merits and in accordance with law, based on evidence.
11. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for this court to invoke its jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the suits, by rejecting the plaints as prayed for by the petitioner, in the civil revision petitions. As such, the Civil Revision petitions are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, they stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the trial Court, including the ground of maintainability of the suits, and on such issue being raised, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
lan TO:
The District Munsif Court, Chengleput