Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 27.01.2006 pronounced in O.S.No.6992/2001, which had been filed by (1) S.R.Selvaraj, (2) S.Suresh Kumar, (3) S.Ravirathnam, (4) S.Rajarathinam and (5) Mrs.Kudiarasu Devi against Mrs.Krishna Rathi Ammal, Santhanalakshmi Ammal and five others. The said suit was filed for a bare injunction not to disturb their alleged possession of the suit property bearing door No.134, Neelangarai, the then Saidapet Taluk, bearing S.No.84/1A measuring about 1.50 Acres together with motor shed, watchman shed, etc. In the judgment pronounced in the said suit, it was observed that Paimash No.165, which was claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiffs therein in accordance with their compromise memo filed in S.A.No.870/1993 could be correlated to S.No.84/1A; that it was classified as a poramboke and that since their title was disputed, they could not maintain the suit for bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title.

11. Per contra, it is the contention of Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.S.P.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the plaintiff, who is also supported by Ms.R.T.Shyamala, learned counsel for the 5th defendant (2nd respondent in the CRP) that the former suit O.S.No.6992/2001 was a suit for bare injunction in which the question of title did not arise and that the former suit was dismissed on the ground of failure to seek declaration of title and also on the basis of the finding that Paimash No.165 correlated to S.No.84/1A has been found to be classified as poramboke. They have also brought it to the notice of this court that yet another suit had been filed long back in 1976, namely O.S.No.904/1976 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, in respect of 1.50 Acres comprised in S.No.84/1A, which was part of the larger extent of Acres 1.90 comprised in S.No.80/1 (before its sub division). They have also brought it to the notice of this court that the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction were granted in the said suit in favour of Santhanalakshmi Ammal; that the same came to be reversed and set aside by the appellate court in the appeal preferred by Krishna Rathi Ammal; that the second appeal filed by Santhana Lakshmi Ammal, namely S.A.No.870/1994, was withdrawn by her on 04.03.1998 based on a compromise under the terms of which Santhana Lakshmi Ammal admitted the title and possession of Krishna Rathi Ammal (the sole defendant therein) in consideration of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- agreed to be paid by her to Santhana Lakshmi Ammal and that thereafter Krishna Rathi ammal executed a sale deed in respect of the said property comprised in S.No.84/1A having an extent of Acres 1.50 cents in favour of S.R.Selvaraj and others for a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and Santhana Lakshmi Ammal also joined in the execution of the said sale deed as a confirming party.

15.6. In 1982 Santhana Lakshmi Ammal claiming that Acres 1.90 comprised in Paimash No.165, Neelankarai Village relating to S.No.84/1 had been jointly registered in her name and in the name of Subramania Iyer; that without her knowledge, an extent of 1.50 Acres was sub-divided, assigned S.No.84/1A and patta came to be issued in favour one Srinivasa Naicker and that the said patta and the transfer effected in the name of Srinivasa Naicker should be cancelled and the Tahsildar should be directed to restore the original position in the Village Register. Based on her petition, the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu at Kancheepuram passed an order on 29.06.1982 cancelling the transfer effected in the name of Srinivasa Naicker and directing the Tahsildar, Saidapet to restore status quo ante in the Village Register for S.No.84/1A.

15.11. It is also true that the first respondent has got a lease deed from S.R.Selvaraj and others, the plaintiffs in the previous suit O.S.No.6992/2001. The dismissal of the said suit cannot be construed to be a recognition or declaration of title or possession of the defendants 1 to 4/revision petitioners. It is pertinent to note that the previous suit was dismissed holding that Paimash No.165 was correlated to S.No.84/1A and the same was classified as a poramboke; that the title was also disputed by the defendants therein and that hence, the suit for injunction without a prayer for declaration of title was not maintainable.