Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 674 (MAD)

Perumal Udayar v. Collector Kancheepuram District

2012-02-08

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This is a classic case of misuse of process of law. 2. The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, forbearing the official respondents, as well as private respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 94 cents, with a constructed house by the petitioner. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner, is that one C.K.Gopal Nair was the owner of the land measuring 3.07 acres in S.No.256 of Pathiri Village. He was also the owner of land measuring 94 cents in S.No.255/2 in the same village vide of registered sale deed dated 21.08.1991. Thiru C.K.Gopal Nair sold both the properties to Thiru Veerasamy Gounder son of Raghava Gounder and put him in possession of the property. Subsequently vide sale deed dated 07.02.1993, the said Raghava Gounder sold the properties to the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that respondents 1 and 3 declined to mutate the land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore filed the civil suit O.S.No.9/2001 in the court of District Munsif, Mathuranthagam for relief of declaration and injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 i.e Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Thasildar from interfering in his possession. 5. The written statement was not filed by the respondents. Accordingly vide judgment dated 22.03.2004, the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed, with consequential relief of injunction. 6. It is also the pleaded by the petitioner, that thereafter respondents 1 to 4, instigated certain persons to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner thereafter filed O.S.No.11/2001 in the court of District Munsif court, Mathuranthagam. The second suit was also decreed, holding the petitioner to be absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 94 cents. 8. The case of the petitioner is that inspite of injunction respondents have tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, which forced the petitioner to file a complaint with Inspector of Police having jurisdiction. Inspite of complaint with the Police, respondents are continuing with indulgence. The case of the petitioner further is that the respondents 5 and 6, and some other persons again attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and that the petitioner was called for enquiry by respondents 1 and 2, on application by respondents 5 and 6. 9. Inspite of complaint with the Police, respondents are continuing with indulgence. The case of the petitioner further is that the respondents 5 and 6, and some other persons again attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and that the petitioner was called for enquiry by respondents 1 and 2, on application by respondents 5 and 6. 9. The submission of the petitioner is, that the 2nd respondent directed the Thasildar, Adi-Dravidar welfare to be impleaded as defendant in O.S.No.9/2001 and 11/2001 and take steps to vacate the order of injunction. The averment took to be patently wrong, as in the earlier paragraphs, the specific stand of the petitioner is, that suit filed by the petitioner stood decreed in favour of the petitioner. 10. It is the case of the petitioner, that 5th respondent is the son of 11th defendant in suit filed by the plaintiff. 11. The grievance of the petitioner in nutshell is that there is violation of decree passed in favour of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents 1 and 2 are not issuing patta in favour of the petitioner, however there is no pleading if any application was filed with the Tahsildar for change of patta in pursuance to the decree passed in favour of the petitioner. 13. In any case the affidavit filed in support of the petition shows that an attempt has been made to enforce civil dispute with private party by invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court, which is not permissible. The writ petition is nothing but misuse of process of this court. Once the matter is settled by Civil court, the decree can be executed. This court while excercising writ jurisdiction does not act as executing court to enforce the decree. As regard change of patta is concerned the petitioner has a statutory remedy under a special Act. 14. Further more if petitioner is aggrieved by the violation of injunction order of the civil court then the remedy is to get it executed in accordance with law. The writ is not bonafide, and seems to have been filed to use the office of respondents 1 to 4 to gain undue advantage in a Civil dispute with respondents 5 and 6. No merit. Dismissed with costs which are assessed as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).