Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2529 (MAD)

K. Segar v. M. Ramasamy

2013-07-18

C.T.SELVAM

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the judgment in E.A.No.36 of 2011 in E.P.No.30 of 2010 in O.S. No.33/2006 on the file of the District Judge at Karaikkal, under judgment dated 26.03.2013. 2. By the order under challenge, the court below has allowed the petition moved under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C and directed removal of obstruction caused by the appellant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 4. The appellant's case is of having been inducted into the suit property by the original defendant in O.S.No.33 of 2006. Though such defendant claimed to be a hereditary trustee of the decree holder temple, the finding that he was not so stands rendered by the Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal in O.S.No.33/2006 dated 26.06.2009 and subsequently stands confirmed under orders of this court in A.S.Nos.86 and 841 of 2010, 374 of 2011 and 7 of 2012 dated 02.03.2012. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant was not a party to the suit in O.S.No.33/2006 on the file of Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal wherein the respondents interalia sought a direction that the temple along with its precincts and properties belonging thereto be handed over to the respondents/plaintiffs. In such suit 12 other tenants had been arrayed as defendants but this appellant had not. In the body of the plaint in was alleged that the first defendant (since deceased) had leased out R.S.No.103/33 to this appellant for a period of five years by an unregistered document 'manaiseetu'. In disposing of A.S.No.86/2011 batch, this court had noted that this appellant had been referred to as a tenant but he was not a defendant in that suit and that if the appellant had any right, he could work out his remedy independently. 6. The respondents/plaintiffs had admitted that the deceased first defendant was the administrator of the suit temple properties. The appellant had entered upon tenancy under him and therefore he was entitled to hold on to his tenanted properties. The appellant had raised obstruction in respect of three items of properties, one of which did not form part of the suit property in O.S. No.33/2006. Learned counsel also contended that the application to remove obstruction had not been moved within the period of limitation. 7. The appellant had raised obstruction in respect of three items of properties, one of which did not form part of the suit property in O.S. No.33/2006. Learned counsel also contended that the application to remove obstruction had not been moved within the period of limitation. 7. Learned counsel relied on decision in N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and Others v. M/s. Goldstone Exports P. Ltd & Others, 2001 (4) CTC 755 and Chandran v. K.M. Muthusamy, 2012 (4) CTC 603 to submit that the appellant was claiming an independent right to the property which he was entitled to hold as a tenant, having been put in possession by a person who was in administration of the temple and to further submit that the application to remove obstruction ought to have been treated like a suit. Issues ought to have been framed before proceeding therewith as an order passed under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 C.P.C would be deemed to be a decree against which an appeal lay. Learned counsel also touched upon Section 41 and 43 of the Evidence Act to submit that judgments both of the trial court and this court under orders in A.S.No. 86 of 2010 batch dated 02.03.2012, were not relevant for the purpose of determination of the appellant's individual right. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the appellant has no right, title or interest in the property regards which he had raised obstruction. The appellant claimed right only under the deceased first defendant. The deceased first defendant had claimed to be a hereditary trustee and the trial court as also this court had found that he was not. Even the invalid lease deed executed by the deceased first defendant was only in respect of an extent of 4 cents in S.No.103/33. The appellant had produced one other document where under he had effected release of certain items of alleged lease hold under the deceased first defendant to such defendant. It is to be seen that the transactions between the appellant and deceased first defendant were not binding upon the temple and further in the suit in O.S. No.33/2006 relief had been sought in respect of the entire properties of the temple. 9. It is to be seen that the transactions between the appellant and deceased first defendant were not binding upon the temple and further in the suit in O.S. No.33/2006 relief had been sought in respect of the entire properties of the temple. 9. Distinguishing the judgment in N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and Others v. M/s. Goldstone Exports P. Ltd & Others, 2001 (4) CTC 755 relied upon by learned counsel for appellant as one relating to a person holding independent right, informing the same to be not applicable in the present case, learned counsel submitted that the plea of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact not having been raised before the court below, could now not be raised. 10. In reply learned counsel for appellant would harp on the observation of this court to the effect that if the appellant had any right he would have to workout his remedy independently and further submitted that as a person in occupation as a tenant only symbolic delivery as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 36 C.P.C could be directed against him and this in turn would amount to recognition of his tenancy right. 11. Considered the rival submissions. 12. The submission made on behalf of appellant that application for removal of obstruction has not been filed in time is to be rejected since such contention has not been raised before the lower court. As rightly submitted, limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, the same presently cannot be raised for the first time. While learned counsel for appellant is right in submitting that an application to move obstruction is to be dealt with as a suit, the decree following a decision there upon being amenable to an appeal, it is to be seen if the mere failure of the court below to frame issues rendered its decision bad and called for an order of remand. The parties have been allowed to tender evidence. while the respondents have not chosen to let in any oral evidence, the appellant has examined himself as R.W.1 as also one other witness R.W.2 and marked as many as 10 exhibits. The parties have been allowed to tender evidence. while the respondents have not chosen to let in any oral evidence, the appellant has examined himself as R.W.1 as also one other witness R.W.2 and marked as many as 10 exhibits. The court below on evidence, oral and documentary before it, found that R.W.2 was performing rituals as a priest at the temple and the payment of 9 bags of paddy by the appellant to him towards everyday expenses of the temple as also wages as exhibited by R1 receipt issued by R.W.2 could not be read as proof that the appellant was cultivating the property of the temple. It was further reasoned that towards proving such fact the appellant ought to have produced the 'adangal certificate'. As against appellant's contention of residing on the 'vacant' land at R.S.No.103/33, the court below has found that Ex.R.3- Patta pass book issued by the Puduvai Bharathiar Grama Bank informed his address to be otherwise. Other documents produced towards proving delivery of paddy to R.W.2 as also documents sought to be put up by the appellant in proof of possession which were on date subsequent to the filing of suit in O.S. No.33/2006 stands rejected by the court below. It is also informed that the appellant has not been able to explain the purpose behind issuing a cheque in a sum of Rs.1,200/- in Ex.R.10 in favour of the temple. It has found no evidence to support the claim of the appellant that he was entitled to hold on to the property in respect of which he had raised obstruction. Observation of the court below that since the deceased first defendant had no right to lease out the temple property, the appellant claiming under him could not seek to establish any independent right may be erroneous since it is the admitted case that the deceased first defendant earlier was permitted to administer the temple properties. Even so, it is seen that evidence oral and documentary, let in by appellant has received due consideration and a decision stands rendered against him. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the court below in arriving at its decision directing removal of obstruction by the appellant. Even so, it is seen that evidence oral and documentary, let in by appellant has received due consideration and a decision stands rendered against him. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the court below in arriving at its decision directing removal of obstruction by the appellant. The only property covered by the lease deed Ex.R.8 is a plot (manai in R.S.No.103/33) and through consideration of Ex.R.3 – Puduvai Bharathiar Grama Bank Pass Book, it has been found that appellant was not resident upon the property as claimed by him. As regards the other properties in respect of which he has raised obstruction, the court below found no proof of his being in possession thereof. Thus, where a reasoned decision stands arrived on the merits of the issue, the mere failure to frame issues would not render the same bad. The decision of the Apex court in Kunju Kesavan v. M.M. Philip I.C.S and Ors, AIR 1964 SC 164 informs that where parties have understood the nature of issue in the case, failure to frame an issue would not vitiate the decision. In Sayeda Akhtar v Abdul Ahad, 2003 (7) SCC 52 , the Apex court has held that where the parties were aware of the issue and had tendered evidence there regards no prejudice would be caused nor the proceedings would be vitiated for want of framing of issues. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, this civil miscellaneous appeal fails and accordingly is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.