DEVI Vs. TRIPLICANE ANNADHANA SAMAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is a third party to the suit, has filed this Civil Revision Petition against the order, dtd. 18/2/2021, passed in E.A.No.3 of 2021 in E.P.No.1532 of 2013 in O.S.No.2736 of 2003 on the file of X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in and by which, the prayer of the petitioner for conducting an inquiry under Sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she was residing in a portion of the suit schedule property for the past thirty years; She was not aware of the proceedings in O.S.No.2736 of 2003 and also the E.P.No.1532 of 2013 proceedings and, immediately after coming to know of the same, she moved the Court for protection in E.P.No.1532 of 2013 on various grounds; the suit was filed for a relief against a tenant for taking possession of the demised premises with a limited portion; the portion was not demarcated either in the plaint or in the judgment or in the decretal order; if some other person was residing in another portion in the suit building, the decree was not binding on that person; she filed documents to prove her possession prior to 2003; the original owner had not filed the suit to remove the obstruction if any prevailing at the time of filing of the suit; therefore, she, as an obstructor, had the right to get impleaded in the execution petition and establish her right of adverse possession; the boundary would prevail over the property; but, in this case, the boundary for the portion claimed by the plaintiff was not given distinctly; therefore, the judgment and decree was not binding on the obstructor; contrary to the plaint and the decree, deliberately, in the execution petition, the portion in the decree was omitted; even in the Will, only two portions were bequeathed to the first respondent-Samajam and one portion to the petitioner's predecessors; hence, the suit was filed deliberately suppressing the facts, so also, the E.P., omitting the portion mentioned in the plaint, judgment and decree, and, hence, she filed an application to hold an inquiry under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and punish the first respondent/decree holder under the penal law.

(3.) The case of the petitioner was resisted by the first respondentSamajam in the counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner, who was a third party, failed in her attempts to challenge the execution petition filed in E.P.No.1532 of 2013 right from the year 2016 and her obstruction petition in E.A.No.3221 of 2016 after recording evidence was dismissed by the Court by an order, dtd. 24/1/2017; even in the obstruction petition, she had not disclosed anything about the portion and, therefore, it could be easily presumed that there was no separate portion; for the first time, it was represented that there were three portions in the premises and the original tenant, namely, the second respondent - Damodharan, was in two portions, which were under lock and key; the said Damodharan alone was instrumental in setting up obstruction petition to drag on the execution proceedings; the petitioner never stated in which portion she was residing, where the alleged portion was situated inside the premises, what was the extent of the alleged portion, whether there was any demarcation of the alleged portion, whether she was a tenant, whether she had paid any rent for the alleged portion, who was the owner of the said portion; the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.