Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The plaintiff before the trial Court is the appellant in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as the plaintiff and the defendants'' in this judgment. The plaintiff-Mr.T.Amuthan Anthony filed two suits before the City Civil Court, Chennai, namely, the suit in O.S.No.188 of 1996 was filed against the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, one Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan, one Mr.K.Damodaran, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar seeking for a judgment and decree of mandatory injunction, more particularly, against the first defendant to cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the second defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan along with permanent injunction against the fourth and fifth defendants restraining them from sanctioning any building plan in favour of the second defendant as well for permanent injunction restraining the sixth defendant from registering any kind of documents to be presented by the second defendant along with costs and one another suit in O.S.No.2350 of 2002 was filed against the sole defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with costs, on the ground that the suit property to an extent of 38 cents covered in Survey No.207/13 part, equivalent to old Baimash No.482, was purchased in the name of one Mr.Ammavasai, the brother of the plaintiff's grandfather Mr.Vaitan and registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Sembium, Madras bearing Sale Deed No.1702/1914. Subsequently, after a partition between the brothers of his grandfather Mr.Vaithan and Mr.Ammavasai, the said Mr.Vaitan acquired the right over the property of 18 cents and obtained the patta. It was also the further claim of the plaintiff that since the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's family, after the death of his grandfather Mr.Vaithan and his father Mr.Thirumani, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. During his continuous possession, when he had put up construction in the property, one Mr.P.Arjunan and Mr.Murali started to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.8859 of 1995 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras seeking for permanent injunction and the same came to be decreed on 17.4.96. While so, the second defendant, claiming to have got allotment of the suit property from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, started to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. Consequent thereto, the plaintiff filed C.S.No.188 of 1996 against the first defendant-Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the second defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan and others for mandatory injunction against the first defendant to cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the second defendant and for other reliefs. After the filing of the first suit in O.S.No.188 of 1996 seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants therein, the plaintiff has also filed another suit in O.S.No.2350 of 2002 against the sole defendant Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan, who claimed to be an allottee by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in respect of the suit property, for the reason that when the plaintiff had already filed W.P.No.11624 of 1997 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition proceedings, inasmuch as the second defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan was said to have been allotted with the suit property by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, this Court dismissed the said writ petition observing that the plaintiff has got an alternative remedy of filing a suit for identification of the suit property by adducing oral and documentary evidence, namely, the land in Survey No.207/13 part of Tirumangalam village, Saidapet Taluk and whether the property belongs to the plaintiff and that to what relief the plaintiff was entitled to from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for having taken possession of the said land as if the land was taken over pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings. The further claim of the plaintiff in the second suit shows that as the suit property is an ancestral property, as such, without acquiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board cannot forcibly take possession of the same and allot it to the second defendant.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the first defendant-Tamil Nadu Housing Board, strongly opposing the maintainability of the suit itself, supported the impugned judgment. Drawing the attention of this Court to Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, the learned counsel contended that the suit originally filed by the plaintiff against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board seeking a decree for mandatory injunction against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and to direct them to cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the second defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction against the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority restraining them from sanctioning any building plan in favour of the defendant, was not maintainable in law, for the sole reason that Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act bars the institution of a suit without issuing the mandatory pre-suit notice sixty days prior to the institution of the suit. Adding further, the learned counsel explained that Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act is more stringent than Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, in a way that under Section 80(2), the issuance of pre-suit notice by the plaintiff before filing a suit against the Government can be dispensed with with the permission of the Court on any urgent grounds. But under Section 138, there is no similar provision equivalent to Section 80(2) been provided, therefore, the issuance of pre-suit notice sixty days prior to the institution of the suit is a sine qua non. In the present case, when the suit was filed, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed a detailed written statement taking two solid grounds, one under Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act that the suit filed by the plaintiff shall not be maintainable, as there was no pre-suit mandatory notice issued to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board sixty days prior to the institution of the suit. Secondly, the written statement also proceeded that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable by virtue of Section 88, which ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of filing of suit against the order passed by the Government or the competent authority, as the same shall not be called in question in any Court and no injunction shall be granted by any Court. Although the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was proceeded ex parte, it was the obligated duty on the part of the trial Court to test the maintainability of the suit on the anvil of Section 138 read with Section 88 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority v. K.S.Narayan, AIR 2006 SC 3379 to say that when the property in question was already acquired and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the suit filed by the plaintiff asking for both mandatory injunction to cancel the allotment order issued by the Housing Board in favour of the second defendant and to grant permanent injunction restraining the fourth and fifth defendants in the suit from sanctioning the building plan in favour of the second defendant, was not maintainable for two reasons, namely, (i) that when the plaintiff had already filed W.P.No.11624 of 1997 challenging the land acquisition proceedings issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act followed by the Section 6 declaration and to quash all the Government Orders insofar as Survey No.207/13 part of Tirumangalam village and Patta No.176 of West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme measuring an extent of 18 cents are concerned, this Court, by a detailed order dated 12.4.2002, while dismissing the said writ petition, clearly held that the plaintiff/writ petitioner had already filed one another Writ Petition No.4190 of 1997 seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, more particularly, the Secretary to Government, Housing Department, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the Inspector of Police and the second defendant Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property in Survey No.207/13 part. Therefore, it was not open to the plaintiff to challenge the acquisition proceedings in a subsequent writ petition. Secondly, after the dismissal of the said writ petition, although liberty was given to the plaintiff to file a suit for identification of the suit property, without filing a suit for declaration of title of the suit property covered in Survey No.207/13, has wrongly filed the suit for mandatory injunction, therefore, the suit filed for mandatory and permanent injunctions was not maintainable.

10. This Court is not able to find any merits or substance in the submissions made by Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. Before adverting to the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff on the other substantial questions of law, let me first consider the substantial question of law as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable or not. Admittedly, when the suit was filed by the plaintiff against the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan and others seeking a decree for mandatory injunction against the first defendant to direct them to cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the second defendant relating to the suit property and for permanent injunction against the fourth and fifth defendants, namely, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority from sanctioning any building plan in favour of the second defendant, without issuing notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, the first defendant-Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed a detailed written statement taking a vital plea that the suit filed against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board without issuing pre-suit notice sixty days prior to the institution of the suit was not maintainable, since the said provision is more stringent than Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. In this context, it is relevant to extract Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act and Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which read as follows:-