THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN CS.No.694 of 2012 P.Navaneetharaj Plaintiff Vs
1. S.Ravi
2. S.Gomathi
3. Anjanapriya
4. Minor Gomatheeswaran by mother, D3
5. Neelavathy
6. The Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Mylapore, Chennai-24
7. The Collector, Chennai District, Chennai-1
8. The District Revenue Officer, Chennai District, Chennai-1
9. The Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk Mylapore, Chennai-4
10. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, by its Chief Executive Officer, Chennai-1 Defendants Prayer:- This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, for the reliefs as stated therein.
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Joel For Defendants : Mr.S.Ravichandran-DD1to5 Mr.Sharath Chandran-DD6 to 9for Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan Mr.J.Jayaramaraj, GA -D10 JUDGEMENT The suit has been filed, seeking a declaration that the decree dated 11.03.2010 passed in C.S.No.185 of 2008 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, for a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s one half share in the suit property, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the property by metes and bounds and allot the plaintiff’s undivided one half share and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and for costs.
2. The plaintiff, P. Navaneetharaj claimed that the suit property originally belonged to himself, his mother, Govindammal and his brother P.Subramani.
3. The suit property is vacant land in Nos. 129/C2, 129/C, 130/6, 132, 132/C and 134, Mundakanni Amman Street, (Arundel Street), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, in R.S.Nos. 2024, O.S.Nos.2279, 2275, 2276, 2277, 2252 and 2253, measuring 90 grounds and 75 sq.ft., within the Sub Registration District of Mylapore and Registration District of Chennai Central.
4. The plaintiff had originally filed the suit against the legal heirs of P.Subramani, his brother. There were 5 defendants.
5. The 1st to 5th defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement along with a counter claim. They claimed that the entire property belonged to them and sought a declaration of title. They paid court fees under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
6. In the plaint, it had been stated that the property originally measured 116.94 grounds, but was subsequently trespassed and occupied by a mosque and also used as a burial ground for Muslims. It had been claimed that the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, assessed the suit property in the name of the plaintiff and his brother, P.Subramani. It had been stated that the 1st defendant played a fraud on the plaintiff and surreptitiously obtained a settlement deed executed by the plaintiff as if settling his share in favour of his brother P. Subramani. This has been subsequently cancelled by the plaintiff.. It had been further stated, that suppressing the cancellation document, the defendants filed a suit for partition among themselves in C.S. No. 185 of 2008 and also obtained a preliminary decree and also a final decree on 11.03.2010, which was also registered as a document in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had instituted the present suit, claiming that the decree in C.S. No. 185 of 2008 is null and void and not binding on him and for partition and separate possession of his undivided one half share in the suit property.
7. The 1st to 5th defendants relied on the decree in C.S. No.185 of 2008 and consequently, claimed the entire suit property and sought a declaration of title in their counter claim.
8. Taking into consideration the fact that the suit property was actually public property, this Court had, by order dated 26.11.2012 in Appln.
No.4724 of 2012 impleaded the Chennai Collector, District Revenue Officer, Chennai and the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk as 6th to 9th defendants. Subsequently, since the property being a Mosque and Muslim burial ground, this Court had suo motto impleaded the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board as the 10th defendant, by order dated 17.08.2016 in Appln. No. 2814 of 2013.
9. On 17.04.2017, the 6th to 10th defendants were set exparte and issues were framed based on the plaint and the written statement with counter claim filed by the 1st to 5th defendants. However, no issue was framed whether the suit is maintainable in view of the fact that the suit property admittedly vested with the T.N.Wakf Board.
10. The plaintiff did not come forward to lead evidence. The 1st defendant alone adduced oral and documentary evidence. He was also not cross examined by the plaintiff. The 1st defendant marked Ex.D.1 to Ex. D.13.
They were all documents relating to the settlement deed, death and legal heir ship certificates and the decree in C.S. No. 185 of 2008.
11. This court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.S.Joel, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. S. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the 1st to 5th defendants, Mr. Sharath Chandran, learned counsel representing Mr.V.
Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the 6th to 9th defendants and Mr.J. Jayaramaraj, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) for the 10th defendant.
12. This is a most vexatious and collusive suit instituted by the plaintiff, and the 1st to 5th defendants have merrily joined in collusion without any regard for rule of law. This is also not the only litigation over the very same property. As mentioned in the plaint, there was an earlier litigation in C.S. No. 185 of 2008.
13. But, more shockingly, both Mr.J.Jayaramaraj, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the 10th respondent brought to the attention of this Court of yet another earlier litigation, with respect to the very same property, in which the plaintiff and the 1st to 3rd and 5th defendants were parties, and which all of them suppressed and withheld from the knowledge of this Court. That was C.S. No. 551 of 2013.
14. The 1st to 3rd and 5th defendant herein were 14th to 17th defendants in that suit. The plaintiff herein was the 18th defendant. The 7th defendant herein was the 13th defendant and the 10th defendant herein was the 15th defendant. In that suit, the 1st to 3rd and the 5th defendant herein had filed Appln. No. 4968 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint, since the property was a Wakf property and a civil suit would not lie. Having taken that stand, in this case, the very same defendants have filed a written statement with a counter claim, seeking declaration of title. The plaintiff herein had not even mentioned a whisper about that litigation.
15. There cannot be a better example of vexatious litigation and collusion to defraud the Government of its property and more importantly, depriving the Muslim community of their right to worship in a Mosque and usage of Burial Ground.
16. The order of this Court in Appln. No. 4968 of 2013 in C.S.
No.551 of 2013 had been reported in 2014 (2) L.W. 357. This Court had held that the Wakf Tribunal alone would have jurisdiction to try the issues since the property is a Wakf property. Appeal had not been preferred against the said order, which has become final.
17. The very same property is under litigation here, and the plaintiff in collusion with the 1st to 5th defendants have indulged in court aided land grabbing. This court shall never be a party or fall victim to such nefarious activities. I unhesitatingly place on record the deep appreciation on Mr.
J.Jayaramaraj, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) and Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the 10th defendant for bringing to the notice the order reported in 2014 (2) L.W. 357.
18. In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 1 (T.Arivanandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal), the father had contested the eviction proceedings, lost it, appealed against it, lost again, moved a revision, suffered rejection of the revision petition and after that, his son re- litigated by filing a suit seeking that the eviction order has been obtained by fraud and collusion. In the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court had stated as follows:-
“2. Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes a decree with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive. ..”
19. In 1998-3-SCC-573 (K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi), the Honourable Supreme Court had stated as follows:-
“ 44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is re litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
20. The same dictum and preposition of law had been reiterated with much advantage by this court in 2005 4 LW 206 (The Member Concern Department of Post, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Vs. Annapoorni and others), which is a case where the property of the Respondents in the civil revision petition had been acquired by the Postal Department for construction of a Post Office and a Postal Department Administration Block. Numerous litigations were filed by the wife and the family members of the land owner entwining the Postal Department in a number of litigations, which had been filed with the purpose of insisting reconveyance of land or getting more rent or to just keep the litigation alive. In such circumstances also, this court affirmed that relitigation at various forums with respect to the same subject matter would amount to abuse of process of court and law.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Srcm
21. In view of the above, I hold that the suit is vexatious and the counter claim is even more vexatious. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed with costs. The Counter Claim filed by the 1st to 5th defendants is dismissed with costs. The 6th to 10th defendants are entitled to claim costs of the litigation.
09.10.2017 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To:
1. The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras Pre-Delivery Judgement in CS.No.694 of 2012