K SARASWATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S.No. 1061 of 2007 has been directed against the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.2844 of 2004 and A.S.No.1062 of 2007 has been directed against the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.8866 of 2005 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Both the appeals arise out of a common Judgment of the above said suits.

(2.) O.S.No.2844 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of her title in respect of the plaint schedule property and also for permanent injunction against the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also for a declaration that the order of the Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Chennai in W.D.C.No.D4/5084/99 dated 29.12.2000 is not valid and against law.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 in their joint written statement would contend that the plaintiff has not filed the suit within the time stipulated by the High Court in the writ petition. Inspite of filing of the suit on or before 4.9.2003, the plaintiff had filed the suit on 12.11.2003. The plaintiff knows that this suit vacant site forms part of large extent of area owned by late Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy and after his death his legal representatives were in possession of the entire area till it was purchased by DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 for valid consideration. No one else has got any interest title over the suit property. So the averments in the plaint that one Sethumadhavan had purchased 2419 sq.ft in the suit survey numbebr property from one Sadullah Basha and others in 1983 and had put up a small superstructure over the property and was in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff is silent about how or from whom the said Sadulla Basha got the same. Sadulla Basha had no manner of right whatsoever in the suit property and taking advantage of the fact that the real owners were residing in Kakinada , Andhra Pradesh, the said Sadulla Basha himself as a owner of the suit property had sold the same to one Sethumadhavan from whom the plaintiff was alleged to have purchased the same. On the basis of the fictitious sale deed and by adopting unfair means, the present plaintiff has got a patta in her name which has subsequently been cancelled by the revenue authorities. Only on the basis of the earlier patta granted in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had approached the second defendant to get the building plan sanction and thereafter put up a superstructure on the suit site. The sons of late Thiru Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy on coming to know the fraud played up by the said Sadulla Basha, Sethumadhavan and the plaintiff, presented a petition to the first defendant who enquired into the same and found that they had trespassed into the suit land and created fictitious sale deeds and on the strength of those deeds, manoured to get a patta and so the patta granted in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled. A show cause notice was sent by the second defendant on 13.11.2002, after considering the reply sent by the plaintiff to the show cause notice, the second defendant found the explanation not satisfactory had revoked the licence given for the building plan for the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.4842 of 1999 in the City Civil Court against the second defendant and its Assistant Engineer, for a declaration that the notices sent by those defendants are illegal and null and void and consequential injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the superstructure. Third defendant and his brother fourth defendant have became the owners of the entire property by virtue of sale deeds executed by the legal representatives of deceased Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy on 14.2.1995 registered as Document No.991/96 and 992/96 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, Perambur-11. DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 have impleaded themselves in the said suit. Thereafter the suit was not pressed by the plaintiff and the same was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the plaintiff had approached this Court by way of writ petition which was also disposed of with a direction to the parties to agitate their right before a Civil Court. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors-in-title were in uninterrupted continuous possession of the property and the superstructure because the owners viz., the absentee landowners residing in Andhra Pradesh have been paying Urban Land Tax till date. After the cancellation by the first defendant, the Collector, all the revenue records were restored in the name of the original owner Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy by the Tahsildar, Purasaiwalkam-Perambur, Chennai-11 and the subsequent purchasers were trespassers and have no right whatsoevr in the suit property. It is false to state that Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy had not established his title before the first defendant and the cancellation of the patta by the first defendant was no superfluous grounds and on alien considerations. It is equally false to allege that even the person who claimed to the original owner had not been in possession of the land in question for over the statutory period and the title of the said person got extinguished by lapse of time. Not only the original owners have been paying the Urban Land Tax but also got the patta in their names. It is further futile to contend that the original owners had not been in possession for over the statutory period. It is not open to the plaintiff to raise the question of adverse possession when she seeks declaration of title on the basis of the sale deed in her favour. The plaintiff had miserably failed to establish how her predecessors especially Sadulla Basha got title to such a vast property or even to the suit property and from whom he had purchased or how his vendor acquired the suit property. The said Sadulla Basha is a rank trespasser and he had created fictitious documents to cheat the purchasers and subsequently committed fraud on the revenue officers also and manoured to get the patta on 28.1.1988. The above said fictitious documents have no connection whatsoever with the title of the late Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy. Since the suit site and adjacent areas were all vacant sites and the plaintiff and her predecessors have trespassed into a portion and created fictitious sale deeds and cheated the defendants 1 and 2. The original owner late Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy had been paying only the Urban Land Tax and a vacant site said to be in constructive possession and he was latter become permanent resident of Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 after their purchase have been paying Urban Land Tax in their names and are not in a position to make any progress on the land purchased by them because of the trespassers. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.