Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3516 (MAD)

S. Rajammal v. S. Ramaraj

2010-08-13

M.VENUGOPAL

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The Appellant/Second Defendant has filed the Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.1996 made in A.S.No.98 of 1996 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. 2. The First Appellate Court viz., the learned I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate in the Judgment in A.S.No.98 of 1996 dated 29.11.1996 has among other things observed that ‘the Suit filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff is legally maintainable and that there is no need to issue Section 80 of C.P.C. Notice before filing of the Suit and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs, hereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.58 of 1994 dated 22.04.1996.’ 3. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, witness-PW1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A52 have been marked. On the side of the Defendants, DWs.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.B1 to B15 have been marked. 4. The Trial Court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a resultant conclusion that the First Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction as against the Second Respondent/First Defendant and decreed the Suit with costs. 5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of Law were framed by this Court: “(1) Whether the Suit for bare injunction is maintainable as against the First Defendant without a notice under Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act? (2) Whether a Suit for injunction against the First Defendant from proceeding in accordance with Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act is maintainable in a Civil Court when there is an express bar under Section 88 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act? (3) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in entertaining a Suit filed on 7.1.1994 on a cause of action which had arisen in the year 1989 especially when the cause of action pleaded in the Suit has not been substantiated in evidence and is also false? (4) Whether a Suit for bare injunction alone is maintainable when the Plaintiff has to remove the obstacle viz., the cancellation of allotment in his favour and the consequent reallotment in favour of the Appellant before he becomes entitled to the relief prayed for in the Suit? (4) Whether a Suit for bare injunction alone is maintainable when the Plaintiff has to remove the obstacle viz., the cancellation of allotment in his favour and the consequent reallotment in favour of the Appellant before he becomes entitled to the relief prayed for in the Suit? (5) Whether in law a Decree for injunction can be sustained when the Plaintiff has uppressed material facts and approached the Court with unclean hands? (6) Whether a Decree for injunction is sustainable in law when the relief prayed for in the Suit had become infructuous on the date of filing of the Suit and was not available to the Plaintiff?” Contentions, Discussions and findings on Substantial Questions of Law 1 to 6: 6. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Defendant, both the Courts should have non-suited the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) because of the fact that the injunction Suit filed by him is not maintainable inasmuch as he has filed failed to issue Notice as per Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act which is a pre-condition for filing of the Suit against the Second Respondent Board/First Defendant. 7. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Second Defendant that as per Section 88 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, the Suit filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is barred, since no injunction can be granted against the Second Respondent/Board from taking action in pursuance of the power conferred by the Statute under Chapter XI of the Tamil Nadu Hosing Board Act. 8. Advancing his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Defendant submits that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is ‘Suppresio Veri’ and ‘Suggestio Falsi’ knowing fully well that the allotment in his favour has been cancelled prior to the notice issued to him on 12.07.1989 and suppressing the material facts, he has chosen to file the present Suit as though the Second Respondent/Hosing Board is about to allot the suit property. Even during the year 1989, he has known about the reallotment of the suit property in favour of the Appellant. 9. Even during the year 1989, he has known about the reallotment of the suit property in favour of the Appellant. 9. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Defendant urges before this Court that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has not chosen to utilise the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hosing Board Act and without resorting to the same, he is not entitled to file the Suit for bare injunction long after the cancellation order which has became final. 10. A plea is taken on behalf of the Appellant/Second Defendant that the Suit has been filed on 07.01.1994 seeking the relief of bare injunction and in fact, the cause of action for the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has arisen on 12.07.1989 and 15.07.1989 and as such, the Suit filed is barred by Limitation. 11. Yet another contention is put forward on the side of the Appellant/Second Defendant to the effect that the Suit for bare injunction without the relief of Declaration is not maintainable in view of Section 41(1) of the Specific Relief Act as without the removal of the obstacle caused by the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) and the reallotment thereof in favour of the Appellant/Second Defendant. 12. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Defendant submits that the relief of bare injunction sought for by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) cannot be granted on the date of filing of the Suit because of the simple fact that the Second Respondent/Housing Board has made an allotment in favour of the Appellant/Second Defendant long before the filing of the Suit and in fact, the Courts below have misdirected themselves in decreeing the Suit filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff and in fact, the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts are perverse in law and therefore, the Judgments and Decree of both the Courts will have to be set aside by this Court by allowing the Second Appeal to prevent an aberration of justice. 13. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 7, the L.Rs. 13. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 7, the L.Rs. of the First Respondent/Plaintiff submits that both the Courts have come to the conclusion on the basis of relevant facts and attendant circumstances of the case and an appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and have held that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction and the concurrent findings of both the Courts need not be interfered by this Court. 14. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 7 submits that an individual having a clear title and possession filing a Suit for injunction ought not to be driven to the extent of seeking a remedy for filing a Suit for Declaration, some person has wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property and to lend support of her contention, she relies the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakarv. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others, 2008 (6) CTC 237 (SC): 2008 (4) SCC 594 at page 607, wherein it is laid down as follows: “Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the Court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a Suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will to be decided in Suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a Suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The Court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to the more comprehensive declaratory Suit, depending upon the facts of the case.” and applying the said principles, the Suit filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) praying for the relief of bare injunction is maintainable because of the fact that incidentally, a Court can go into the issue of one’s title of a suit property. 15. 15. To appreciate the facts of the case in a proper manner, this Court opines that it is quite essential to traverse upon the pleadings set out by the parties. 16. In the Plaint, (Deceased First Respondent/Plaintiff) has among other things stated that he has applied to the Second Respondent/First Defendant Board for allotment of the house mentioned in the plaint schedule and the same has been allotted by the Second Respondent/First Defendant and he has to pay a monthly instalment of 20/- for his occupation of the house and that the house will be allotted to him after payment of the entire instalment amount and that the said house has been allotted to him on 1.9.1975 and he has been paying instalments regularly and the Appellant/Second Defendant has no manner of right over the schedule mentioned property nor the house has been allotted to her by the Second Respondent/Housing Board. 17. According to the case of the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) taking advantage of his temporary absence on account of his business tour, the Appellant/Second Defendant has filed a Suit O.S. No.868 of 1985 against him for the relief of permanent injunction that he should not interfere with her alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit property and in the said Suit, the Appellant has taken the plea that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property which is a false one and in fact, the Appellant/Second Defendant has no prosecuted the Suit which ended in dismissal on 25.09.1989. 18. The First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has pleaded in his Plaint that the Appellant/Second Defendant is again endeavouring through political influence to get the schedule mentioned property allotted to her and moreover, on 24.12.1993, the Second Respondent/Housing Board has received the instalment payment amount in respect of the schedule mentioned property from him and there is no legal basis for the First Defendant to cancel the allotment made in favour of the First Respondent/Plaintiff and allot the property to anyone else much less to the Appellant/Second Defendant. 19. Added further, when the Second Respondent/First Defendant is threatening to change the allotment in favour of the Appellant/Second Defendant, it has become necessary for the First Respondent/Plaintiff to file the present Suit praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Second Defendant/First Defendant and his Officers allotting the schedule mentioned property to anyone other than him. 20. 19. Added further, when the Second Respondent/First Defendant is threatening to change the allotment in favour of the Appellant/Second Defendant, it has become necessary for the First Respondent/Plaintiff to file the present Suit praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Second Defendant/First Defendant and his Officers allotting the schedule mentioned property to anyone other than him. 20. The Second Respondent/First Defendant Board has taken a stand in the Written Statement that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) on 01.09.1975 has been issued with the allotment card and after receiving the said card, he has failed to enter into an Agreement with the Housing Board as per Rules and Regulations and after sometime, he has inducted the Appellant/Second Defendant in possession of the suit property and has absented himself and he never exercised his obligation to pay the monthly instalment as per Rules and Regulations relating to the allotment of the house and since he has been a defaulter, his allotment has been cancelled duly. 21. According to the Second Respondent/First Defendant Board the Appellant/Second Defendant on the basis of possession of the suit property by her with necessary evidence like Ration Card, etc., has been given the reallotment of the suit property as early as on 15.7.1989 and that the Appellant has started paying the monthly instalment of ‘10/- and since the allotment comes under the purview of Slum Clearance Scheme formulated by the Government, the Appellant/Second Defendant is also eligible person who has got possession of the property and continue to be in possession by paying the monthly instalments and since the allotment in favour of the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has been cancelled and the property has been re-allotted to the Appellant/Second Defendant already, the question of granting injunction does not arise. 22. Proceeding further, the Second Respondent/First Defendant has taken a plea in the Written Statement that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has not issued the pre-suit notice as per the procedure contemplated and therefore, the Suit has to be dismissed in limine. 23. In the Written Statement, the Appellant/Second Defendant has averred that the cancellation of allotment in favour of the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is genuine and correct and as per Rules of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and as such, the Suit is not maintainable both on facts and in law. 24. 23. In the Written Statement, the Appellant/Second Defendant has averred that the cancellation of allotment in favour of the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is genuine and correct and as per Rules of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and as such, the Suit is not maintainable both on facts and in law. 24. PW1, the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) in his evidence has deposed that he has been allotted the house at Chinthamani colony and the Allotment Card made by the Second Respondent/First Defendant Housing Board is Ex.A1 and he has remitted the amounts through Money Order and the Receipts are Exs.A13 to A20 and the Temporary Receipt issued to him by the Second Respondent/First Defendant are Exs.A32 to A51. 25. It is the further evidence of PW1 that when he has been residing in the suit property at that time, the Appellant/Second Defendant (Sister) has stayed with him and when he has gone out of station in connection with his business he has asked his sister to reside in the suit property and in the year 1985, her sister filed a Suit and the same has been dismissed as she has not proceeded further in the said Suit and the Second Respondent/First Defendant Board has not issued him any pre-suit Notice for cancellation of the house and the Second Respondent has no right to allot the suit property to any other person and therefore, he prays for the relief of permanent injunction. 26. PW1 (in his cross-examination) has stated that for cancelling the allotment of the suit property, he has not received any postal communication and further that there might have been a postal communication dated 12.06.1989 to his residential address to the effect that before 24.06.1989, he has to answer the same and it is wrong to state that since he has not been there, the said communication has been returned and at that time, he has resided there and he has gone to the job and therefore, the postal communication might have been returned. 27. 27. DW1 (Junior Assistant of the Second Respondent/First Defendant) in his evidence has stated that on 01.09.1975, the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has been allotted a house under the Slum Clearance Board and as per the Housing Board Rules within 30 days from the date of allotment, one has to execute the Agreement and also to reside in the allotted place and the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has not executed the Agreement in favour of the Housing Board. 28. Also, DW1 has further stated that the First Respondents/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has given the allotted house to the Appellant/Second Defendant and has gone away and as per the Housing Board Order, if a person is not residing in the allotted place then the person who is residing there is entitled to be allotted with the said house and on 12.06.1989, since the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has not resided in the suit property, an explanation has been asked for from him and Ex.B2 is the Returned Cover with the endorsement “No such Addressee at the Door No.” and Ex.B3 is the reallotment of the suit property to the Appellant/Second Defendant. The evidence of DW1 is also to the effect that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has sent Money Order two times and they have been received by the Second Respondent/Housing Board because the Allotment Section is different and the Account Section is different and after Ex.A13, they have returned the Money Order and the Suit filed is not maintainable. 29. DW1 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that since no Agreement has been executed within 30 days from allotment, no notice has been issued to the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) and it is wrong to state that because of political influence, the Appellant/Second Defendant has been allotted the suit property. 30. 29. DW1 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that since no Agreement has been executed within 30 days from allotment, no notice has been issued to the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) and it is wrong to state that because of political influence, the Appellant/Second Defendant has been allotted the suit property. 30. DW2 (the Appellant/Second Defendant) in her evidence has stated that his Brother viz., the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has allotted the suit property and since he has not been in a position to pay the Rent, he has directed her to reside in the suit property and for the past 10 years, his Brother has come and visited the suit property and after leaving the house to her, she is only remitting the Rent amount and that she has received a sum of ‘5,000/- and has taken the Receipt and subsequently, a Notice has been issued by the Housing Board that a person who resides in the property will own the house and after receipt of the Notice, they informed her that if she gets the signature of the Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar then they will allot the house and after due enquiry, on the basis of the Tahsildar Certificate submitted by her to the Housing Board, the Housing Board has issued a Receipt for the receipt of amount of ‘2,000/-. Ex.B4 dated 04.07.1989 and Exs.B6 to B12 are Rent Tax Receipts and Ex.B13 is the Ration Card. 31. The evidence of DW2 is to the effect that her brother viz., the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) after his marriage, he has been residing at Canvai and that he has not been coming to the house for the past 12 years and Ex.B5 is the copy of notice issued by the Housing Board to her brother. 32. 31. The evidence of DW2 is to the effect that her brother viz., the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) after his marriage, he has been residing at Canvai and that he has not been coming to the house for the past 12 years and Ex.B5 is the copy of notice issued by the Housing Board to her brother. 32. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Defendant contends that Ex.B2 is the Returned Cover of the Notice dated 12.06.1989 issued by the Second Respondent/First Defendant (Housing Board) addressed to the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) and (and in the said notice, it has been mentioned that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has let out the house to different person without the permission of the Housing Board and therefore, he has been asked to give his explanation before 24.06.1989 for sub-letting it to other person failing which the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has been informed that his allotment will be cancelled without any prior notice and the house will be reallotted) and the said cover has been returned with the postal endorsement that ‘No such Addressee at the Door No written to her on 23.06.1989’ and this endorsement of the Postal Authority must be presumption to proper and effective service on the correct address of the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) in the eye of Law. 33. In support of the said contention, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indo Automobiles v. Jai Durga Enterprises & others, 2008 (4) CTC 190 (SC): AIR 2009 SC 386 , at paragraph No.8, wherein it is observed as follows: “Admittedly, notice under Section 138-B of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sent to the Respondents through Registered Post and under a certificate of posting on the correct address of the respondents. The High Court has quashed proceeding on the ground that although notices through registered post and also under Certificate of posting were sent by the Appellant/Complainant to the Respondents but because of the endorsement of the postal peon, the service could not be said to have been effected. In our view, the High Court was not justified in holding that service of notice could not be found to be valid.” 34. In our view, the High Court was not justified in holding that service of notice could not be found to be valid.” 34. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Defendant cites the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, 1999 (3) CTC 358: AIR 1999 SC 3762 , at page 3763, wherein it is laid down as follows: “No doubt Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not require that the notice should be given only by “post”. Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Section 27 of General Clauses Act can profitably be imported in a case where the sender has dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service. Any other interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position as the drawer of the cheque who is liable to pay the amount would resort to the strategy of subterfuge by successfully avoiding the notice.” 35. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Defendant also seeks in aid yet another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Raja Kumari v. Subbarama Naidu and another, 2004 (5) CTC 268 (SC): AIR 2005 SC 109 , wherein it is observed as follows: “The context envisaged in Section 138 of Act invites a liberal interpretation for the person who has statutory obligation to give notice. If a strict interpretation is given that the drawer should have actually received notice for the period of 15 days to start running no matter the payee sent the notice on the correct address, a trickster cheque drawer would get a premium to avoid receiving the notice by different strategies, and he could escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act. It must be borne in mind that the Court should not adopt an interpretation which helps a dishonest evader and clips on honest payee as that would defeat the very legislative measure.” 36. He draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan and Co. It must be borne in mind that the Court should not adopt an interpretation which helps a dishonest evader and clips on honest payee as that would defeat the very legislative measure.” 36. He draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan and Co. v. Wazir Javier Chand, AIR 1989 SC 630 , wherein it is held that ‘Notice sent through registered post on correct address is a valid one and later returned for non-availability of addressee and there is no responsibility on sender or postman to arrange that notice is served.’ 37. In the instant case on hand, a perusal of Ex.B2-Returned cover addressed to the First Respondent/Plaintiff’s suit property address (Since Deceased) shows that the postal authority has made the following endorsement ‘No such Addressee at the Door No. Returned on 23.06.1989’ and therefore, such notice must be deemed to have been served on the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) in the eye of Law, as opined by this Court and the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act can be usefully implied in the present case where the Second Respondent/First Defendant Housing Board has despatched the Notice by RPAD with the correct address written on it. 38. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, which runs as follows: 138. Notice of Suit Against Board etc.- No Suit shall be instituted against the Board, or any member, or any officer of servant of the Board, or any person acting under the direction of the Board, or of the Chairman or Managing Director of any officer or servant of the Board, in respect of any act done or intended to be done under this Act or any Rule or Regulation made there under until the expiration of sixty days next after written notice has been delivered or left at the Board’s Office or the place of abode of such officer, servant or person, stating the causes of action, the name and place of abode of the intending Plaintiff, and the relief which he claims, and the Plaint must contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.’ 39. Admittedly, in the present case on hand, the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has not given pre-suit notice to the Second Respondent/First Defendant Housing Board as per Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act. The terms of Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act must be strictly complied with. The cause of action has to be stated clearly in the Notice under Section 138 of the Act. To put it differently, the Notice under Section 138 of the Act must contain all particulars informing the circumstances giving rise to the claim that are necessary. As a matter of fact, a reading of Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act shows that it applies to injunction Suit also and inasmuch as the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has not issued pre-suit notice under Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, the Suit is barred for want of notice, as opined by this Court. Also, by virtue of Chapter XI of Section 88 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, ‘No order made by the Government or the competent authority in exercise of any power conferred or under the Chapter XI shall be called in question in any Court and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this chapter’ and in view of the specific bar, the Suit filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) praying for the relief of injunction is not maintainable. 40. Indeed, the present Suit has been filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) before the Trial Court on 07.01.1994 praying for the relief of permanent injunction as against the Second Respondent/First Defendant and his Officers allotting the schedule mentioned property to any other person than the First Respondent/Plaintiff. However, the Appellant/Second Defendant has been given the reallotment of the suit property as early as on 15.07.1989. However, the Appellant/Second Defendant has been given the reallotment of the suit property as early as on 15.07.1989. Therefore, the averments of the First Respondent/Plaintiff at paragraph No.5 of the Plaint to the effect that ‘as the Second Respondent/First Defendant is threatening to change the allotment in favour of the Appellant/Second Defendant, it has become necessary for the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) to come forward with the Suit, etc.,’ are not a correct one and further more, when the Second Respondent/First Defendant/Housing Board has reallotted the suit property as early as on 15.07.1989, then the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) ought to have filed the Suit for declaration of her right in the suit property and for recovery of possession and even during the pendency of Suit, O.S. No.58 of 1994 on the file of the Trial Court, the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has not chosen to amend the Plaint for the relief of declaration of his title in respect of the suit property and for possession and in short, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) ought to have filed a complete and comprehensive Suit praying for the relief of Declaration of his right in respect of the suit property and for recovery of possession, but unfortunately, the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has not amended the Plaint or filed the Suit for such a course of action referred to supra and therefore, in that view of the matter, this Court opines that the suit property filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is not maintainable in the eye of Law. 41. 41. In regard to the plea of the Appellant/Second Defendant that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has suppressed the material facts about when he has approached the Court with unclean hands it is to be pointed out that since the Plaintiff has not been quite sure as to the cancellation of allotment in his favour pursuant to the notice issued by the Housing Board, etc., it is to be pointed out that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has filed the Suit for bare injunction that he has not received the notice from the Second Respondent/First Defendant Housing Board and moreover, he has not been aware of the Ex.B2-Returned Cover (Notice dated 12.06.1989 issued by the Second Respondent/First Defendant) and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has suppressed the material facts and has approached the Court with unclean hands. 42. It is not in dispute that the Suit has been filed before the Trial Court on 07.01.1994. However, the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has sought the relief of permanent injunction against the Second Respondent/First Defendant Housing Board and his Officers allotting the schedule mentioned property to anyone other than him. But it is clear form the evidence of DW1 and on the basis of available materials on record that the Appellant/Second Defendant has been re-allotted the suit property on 15.07.1989. Therefore, on the date of filing of the Suit on 07.01.1994, for the relief of permanent injunction, the Suit filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is not maintainable, as the relief prayed for has become an infructuous one and not available to him and the substantial questions of law 1 to 6 are answered accordingly and the Second Appeal succeeds. 43. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. Resultantly, the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.1996 made in A.S. No. 98 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District judge cum Chief judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore and the Judgment and Decree dated 22.04.1996 made in O.S. No. 58 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore are set aside. The Suit O.S. No. 58 of 1994 filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. The Suit O.S. No. 58 of 1994 filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the Suit filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Since Deceased) will not preclude his Legal heirs in initiating appropriate proceedings seeking appropriate remedy thereto, before the competent Forum in the manner known to Law. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.