CHOKKAIYA CHETTIAR Vs. T SIVAKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants 2 to 8 in the suit. THE first respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the first defendant in the suit. THE first respondent filed the suit, claiming that he is the tenant under the 2nd respondent, praying for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from evicting him, except by due process of law. He also filed an application underO.39, Rule 1 and Civil Procedure Code in I.A.No.724 of 2003 for grant of temporary injunction. THE trail Court granted an order of interim injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 2 to 8 have preferred this civil revision petition. Heard the learned advocate for the revision petitioners and the respondents.

(2.) MR.P.L.Narayanan, the learned advocate for the revision petitioners would contend that the 2nd respondent has no right in the suit property and the lease said to have been granted is created one and the same is not valid and therefore, the suit filed by the first respondent is not maintainable. Neither the 2nd respondent nor the first respondent was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. It is stated that the 2nd defendant's father was the previous owner of the property covered under two documents. At the time when the Village was taken over under the Act No.30 of 1963, the Settlement Tahsildar, Thanjvaur granted patta in the name of the 2nd defendant and 5 others. The property is comprised in T.S.No.2981/1 to 2981/5, which consists of 12 shops and a hotel building and the vacant land. For the site buildings, urban land tax was also levied and it was paid by the pattadars, i.e., the revision petitioners and the present patta number is 4259. Superstructure tax also stands in the name of Sambandam Chettiar and Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar, the petitioners 2 and 3/defendants 3 and 4. The first defendant, Umayal Achi is not even a pattadar and she has no right in the suit property. Umayal Achi's mother-in-law was Kruppayee alias Meenatchi, step sister of the first defendant's father, Meyyappa Chettiar. Umayal Achi has been attempting to lay a false claim to the suit property and she has already filed a suit in O.S.No.1507 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Namakkal, in which, the suit property was not included at all. The first defendant can neither claim title nor possession to the property. For about more than 60 years, the suit property has been in the possession and enjoyment of Meyyappa Chettiar and his legal heirs to the knowledge of Umayal Achi. In fact, to put an end to the unnecessary claim by Umayal Achi, certain value properties were sold to her as per wishes of her mother-in-law in 1961. Again on 17.5.1993, Umayal Achi has given a registered release deed in respect of all the properties. As such, Umayal Achi, the 2nd respondent herein has no right in the suit property nor in possession of the same. The lease deed dated 14.7.2002 said to have been executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff is only a concocted document. That in the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, it is stated that it was learnt by him that the plaintiff is having a two wheeler stand. The VAO has stated so only with a view to help the plaintiff to get an order of injunction. Thatched shed and pandal were hurriedly erected at about 1.00 a.m. on 20.9.2003 for this purpose, two lorry loads of persons were hired and the agent of the 2nd defendant, N.S.Manivasagam had also reported the same to the police and on enquiry, he came to know that one Raja and Subramanian were the men behind this illegal an criminal trespass. They entered into the plaint vacant site, which is the subject matter of the suit and blocked by a wall and also by a gate, abutting the road on the eastern side and the wall was demolished and also the gate was forcibly removed. As neither, the 1st respondent nor the 2nd respondent was in possession of the suit property, the first respondent is not entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction and also not entitled to get an order of interim injunction. But, however, the first respondent after having obtained an order of injunction, trespassed into the suit property and also to put up a construction in the suit property and the suit is a abuse of process of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and pray to strike off the plaint itself and also to direct the first respondent to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the revision petitioners.

(3.) NOW, we have to consider as to whether the revision petitioners/defendants are entitled to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, in questioning the validity of the order passed by the trial Court underO.39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.e