Madras High Court
R.Sambamurthi (Died) vs C.Nagarajan (Died) on 24 July, 2017
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order
13.11.2018 26.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.321, 322 & 323 of 2005
1.R.Sambamurthi (Died)
2.M.R.S.Aenchal
3.M.R.S.Ramya
4.M.R.S.Nithya ... Petitioners / Respondents
[P2 to P4 are brought on record as
L.Rs., of the deceased sole
petitioner vide court orders dated
24.07.2017 made in C.M.P.(MD)
Nos.1946 to 1951 of 2016 in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.321 of 2005,
in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.1952 to 1957
in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.322 of
2005 and in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.1958
to 1963 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.
323 of 2005]
-vs-
1.C.Nagarajan (Died)
2.N.Saraswathy
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
3.N.Gunasekaran
4.N.Chandrasekaran
5.Jeyalakshmi ... Respondents / Petitioners
[R2 to R5 are brought on record
as L.Rs., of the deceased sole
respondent vide court orders
dated 24.07.2017 made in C.M.P.
(MD) Nos.1946 to 1951 of 2016 in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.321 of 2005,
in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.1952 to 1957
in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.322 of
2005 and in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.1958
to 1963 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.
323 of 2005]
PRAYER (in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.321 of 2005): Civil revision petition is
filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records
relating to the order dated 10.12.2003 in Petition No.896 of 2000, on the file of
the Revenue Court (Special Deputy Collector), Tiruchirapalli and to set aside
the same.
PRAYER (in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.322 of 2005): Civil revision petition is
filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records
relating to the order dated 10.12.2003 in Petition No.1093 of 2000, on the file
of the Revenue Court (Special Deputy Collector), Tiruchirapalli and to set aside
the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
PRAYER (in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.323 of 2005): Civil revision petition is
filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records
relating to the order dated 10.12.2003 in Petition No.894 of 2000, on the file of
the Revenue Court (Special Deputy Collector), Tiruchirapalli and to set aside
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Mahadevan
(in all C.R.Ps) for Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Balakarthick for R2 to R5
(in all C.R.Ps)
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues as well as the parties involved in all the civil revision petitions are one and the same, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The civil revision petitions are directed against the common order of the Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli, dated 10.12.2003, passed in Petition Nos. 896, 1093 & 894 of 2000, directing the revision petitioner to pay the lease arrears to the respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is noted that in respect of various fasalies contending that the revision petitioner being the lessee of the subject matter involved in the lis under the respondent had failed to pay the lease amount as agreed to, accordingly, claiming the arrears of the lease amount as well as possession, it is noted that the respondent has levied three petitions before the Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli.
4. The above said petitions of the respondent had been resisted by the revision petitioner on the footing that in respect of the one item of the subject matter, the respondent is not the owner of the same and it is contended that the same belongs to the Temple and therefore, it is contended by the revision petitioner that the respondent is not entitled to maintain the petitions for seeking the arrears of the lease amount as regards the above said item of the subject matter. In addition to that, the plea of limitation has also been taken by the revision petitioner for resisting the relief sought for by the respondent.
5. Considering the materials placed on record, it is noted that as regards the plea of the revision petitioner that the respondent is not the owner of the one item of the subject matter and that the same belongs to the Temple, as rightly determined by the Court below, it is noted that the said plea has http://www.judis.nic.in 5 already been raised by the revision petitioner in the earlier proceedings between the parties in the Original Petition No.103 of 1994 and the said issue has been sorted out and determined in favour of the respondent, in such view of the matter, when the revision petitioner has not thrown any challenge to the above said determination of the Court below as regards the ownership of the respondent in respect of the subject matter in entirety, as rightly determined by the Court below, the revision petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the said issue once again that the respondent is not the owner of the one item of the subject matter and therefore, the petitions are not maintainable with reference to the same, has been rightly discountenanced by the Court below and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
6. The revision petitioner has taken the plea of limitation as regards the claim of lease arrears and on a perusal of the impugned order of the Court below, it is noted that as regards the claim of the lease arrears, which had been barred by limitation, the Court below had disallowed the said relief prayed for by the respondent and accordingly, it is noted that considering the agreement of lease entered into between the parties and the quantum of lease amount to be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent for various fasalies as regards the subject matter, determined the lease arrears as detailed in the order for various fasalies ranging from 1401 to 1409 and accordingly http://www.judis.nic.in 6 determined that the revision petitioner is liable to pay the lease arrears, less the amount already deposited by the revision petitioner and accordingly, passed the impugned order against the revision petitioner. Considering the arrangement of lease between the parties as well as the quantum of lease arrears to be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent for various fasalies, as rightly determined by the Court below, considering the liability of the revision petitioner to pay the lease amount to the respondent, in such view of the matter, in the present civil revision petitions, I do not find any reason to interfere with the determination of the Court below as regards the quantum of the lease arrears, which had been rightly assessed and determined by the Court below and in such view of the matter, absolutely there is no merit in the revision petitions entitling for acceptance of the same.
7. For the reasons aforestated, the civil revision petitions are found to be devoid of merits and accordingly, they are dismissed with costs.
26.11.2018
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
krk
To:
The Special Deputy Collector,
Revenue Court,
Tiruchirapalli.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
krk
COMMON ORDER
IN
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.321, 322 & 323 of
2005
26.11.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in