Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2416 (MAD)

V. Sivaraj v. L. Chandru

2023-07-17

K.KUMARESH BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil suit filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of Original side Rules read with Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 (a) for a declaration declaring that the document styled as Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.02.2019 in which the signatures of the plaintiffs were obtained in the Old Commissioner of Police Office at Egmore, Chennai-600 008 by S. Anbazhagan, Inspector of Police, ALG Cell, Team-16, CCB and the defendant by threat, coercion and duress is null and void and not binding upon the same and by setting aside the same, (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants and anyone claiming under him or acting on his behalf from in any way dealing with the suit A. B and C schedule properties either by alienating or encumbering the same or in any other manner whatsoever; (c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and men and everyone claiming under him or acting on his behalf from in any way interfering with the plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit A, B and C schedule properties in any manner whatsoever, (d) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) for high-handedly demolishing the compound walls and damaging the electric connection, electric meter, bore well, zinc sheets with iron angles attached to the ground in plaint A, B and C schedule properties i) directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit, and (f) grant such other suitable relief or reliefs as this Hon''ble Court may fit and proper under the circumstances of this case and thus render) 1.The suit is filed to declare the Memorandum of Understanding executed as Exhibit P.39 as null and void and to restrain the defendants from claiming any rights in the schedule properties, and also for the damages caused in the schedule mentioned properties. 2. When the matter stood for consideration Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, suit summons was served on to the defendants in the month of March 2019, despite receiving the notice none has appeared before this Court. Consequently, the defendants were set ex parte by order dated 24.03.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce oral evidence. 3. When the matter stood for consideration Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, suit summons was served on to the defendants in the month of March 2019, despite receiving the notice none has appeared before this Court. Consequently, the defendants were set ex parte by order dated 24.03.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce oral evidence. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submit that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one late Krishna Reddiar who had executed a settlement deed dated 05.11.1932, which is marked and produced as Ex.P2, in favour of his sons and among the sons, late Munusamy Reddiar, who is the father of the vendor Venkatarama Reddiar was allotted an extent of 16529 sq.ft. This settlement deed of 1932 establishes continuous possession and enjoyment of schedule properties of the vendors and their predecessors. 4. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the plaintiffs along with one late K.Kanniah has purchased the scheduled mentioned properties from late Venkatarama Reddiar and his grandsons N.Jayaprakash and N.Sureshkumar. The father of the 2nd plaintiff, late K.Kannaiah, had purchased the “C”schedule property, 1st plaintiff had purchased the “A” schedule property and the 2nd plaintiff had purchased the “B” schedule properties on 17.09.1996, 18.09.1996 and 19.09.1996 respectively, and the same has been registered on the file of Joint-1, Sub-Registrar Officer, Saidapet, Chennai as Doc No. 4305, 4335 and 4362 of 1996 each measuring to an extent of 5777 sq ft, 4567 sq ft and 5915 sq ft respectively. Those sale deeds are produced as Exs.P7 to P9. The said K.Kannaiah died on 01.09.2012, he is survived by his wife, son (2nd plaintiff herein) and two daughters Mrs.Suganiya and Mrs. Suchitra. The mother and sisters of the 2nd plaintiff have executed a release deed dated 16.11.2012 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and the same was registered as Doc No. 8292 of 2012 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Joint, Saidapet, thereby the 2nd plaintiff became the absolute owner of the ''C'' schedule property also. 5. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that, to establish the title and long possession of the vendors the plaintiffs had made an reliance to the proceedings dated 29.11.1960 before the settlement officer in respect of T.S.No 87, the same has been produced and marked as Ex.P43. 5. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that, to establish the title and long possession of the vendors the plaintiffs had made an reliance to the proceedings dated 29.11.1960 before the settlement officer in respect of T.S.No 87, the same has been produced and marked as Ex.P43. In those proceedings the vendor Venkatrama Reddiar''s ownership of the property in T.S.No 88, is clearly referred to. Further in regard to T.S.No 88 is concerned the settlement officer in S.R.No. 58/59 has issued notice to Venkatrama Reddiyar mentioning T.S.No 88, to an extent of 51 1/2 cents in which the Venkatrama Reddy, E.K.Govinda Reddy, E.K.Raghava Reddy, Salammal and Lakshmi Ammal are shown as owners. For further reliance the extract of the town survey land register (TSLR) of lands dated 29.5.1986 in T.S.No.88 measuring 9 grounds and 834 sq ft is produced as, Ex.P44. 6. Later, there arose a dispute between the 1st plaintiff and late Kanniah, regarding the internal arrangement. For which the said Late Kanniah and 2nd plaintiff have filed two suits in O.S.No. 7856 and 7837 of 2007 before the V Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai against the 1st plaintiff, N.Anandan and N.Jayachandran, as the 1st plaintiff has entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 23.04.2003, in Doc No.1976 of 2003 produced and marked as, Ex.P11 with the said Anandan and Jayachandran for selling 50% share of the 1st plaintiff measuring 8329.5 sq.ft in the suit mentioned property. The said Kannaiah died in the year 2012, thereafter the plaintiffs settled the matter before the Lok Adalat, Chennai dated 03.11.2014 based on the mutual agreement dated 30.06.2014. Thereafter the said agreement of sale entered by the 1st plaintiff were cancelled by a cancellation deed dated 12.08.2016, the same is produced as, Ex.P14. 7. He would further submit that the plaintiffs herein had filed a suit against the father of the 1st defendant as early as in the year 2004 and 2006, as he made claims over some portion of land adjacent to T.S.No.87. The suit filed in O.S.No.303 of 2006, is pending before the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and as regards O.S.No.5009 of 2004, an second appeal was preferred by the 1st defendant and the same is pending before this Court. The suit filed in O.S.No.303 of 2006, is pending before the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and as regards O.S.No.5009 of 2004, an second appeal was preferred by the 1st defendant and the same is pending before this Court. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the plaintiffs vendor Venkatrama Reddiar had also filed a suit as early as in 1992 in O.S.No. 8289 of 1992 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai regarding an extent of 888 sq.ft in T.S.No.87 against the same Muthu Reddiar. A second appeal was preferred and the same was disposed of by a common Judgment and decree dated 17.04.2017 by this Hon''ble Court. 8. He would further submit that the plaintiffs let out the suit schedule properties to one tenant named, ''Ganesan Builders Limited'' for a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- in the year 2016. On the properties the plaintiffs have made several developments such as a compound wall, fenced the properties with zinc sheets on request of the tenant, dug a bore well and fixed a motor for pumping water for which electricity connection was also taken. 9. He would submit that on 15.06.2018, through the tenant the plaintiffs came to know that some third party had entered the suit properties claiming to have come from Taluk Office Guindy to measure the properties. The plaintiffs have submitted a letter dated 18.06.2018 in person to the Tahsildar, Guindy Taluk clearly mentioning that the plaintiffs are having absolute title over the suit schedule properties and also attached the parent documents from the year 1932 upto the year of purchase i.e., 1996. On 26.06.2018, the Tahsildar, Guindy issued a notice to the 1st plaintiff stating that based on the complaint given by the 1st defendant, and as per Lr.No. 429/CCB/COP/V/2018 dated 26.05.2018 from Inspector of police Mr.S.Anbahagan, (2nd defendant) the Tahsildar will survey the land at 11.00 am on 29.06.2018 and the recipients of the said notice shall come without fail in person along with the original documents. The 1st plaintiff appeared before the Tahsildar on 29.06.2018 at 11.00 am during the survey and produced original title deeds along with supporting documents thereby establishing his absolute title over the properties. 10. The 1st plaintiff appeared before the Tahsildar on 29.06.2018 at 11.00 am during the survey and produced original title deeds along with supporting documents thereby establishing his absolute title over the properties. 10. He would further submit that on 07.02.2019, the tenant has handed over the vacant possession of the schedule properties to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, the 1st defendant had attempted to disturb the plaintiffs'' possession and the plaintiffs have been resisting the same. 11.The learned senior counsel would further submitted that on 14.02.2019, a police officer by name S.Anbazhagan, (2nd defendant) along with the Sub-Inspector, had taken the plaintiffs from their house to the Old Commissioner Office at Egmore for an enquiry based upon the complaint given by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs were wrongfully detained by the Inspector of police, misusing his official position. Thereafter, they continued threatening the plaintiffs and coerced them to sign the documents prepared by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff''s under the threat and coercion had handed over the original sale deeds which was in the custody of the 2nd plaintiff, along with two Rs.20/- nonjudicial stamp papers purporting to be a MOU prepared by the defendants. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in which their signatures were obtained is produced as, Ex.P39. One Jayaprakash as directed by Inspector of Police signed as a witness to the said MOU. All these incidents were videographed by the son of the 1st plaintiff. 12. He would further submit that the plaintiffs were forced to give a letter to the Inspector of Police stating that they are going home in good condition after the so-called enquiry on 14.02.2019. In the said letter there is also a mention of the plaintiffs handing over the original sale deeds Nos. 4335, 4362 and 4305 of 1996. The 2nd plaintiff had also taken a photo of the said letter. 13. The learned senior counsel would submit that the 2nd defendant served a notice under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C calling upon the plaintiffs to produce the three sale deeds and documents by 18.02.2019. They were further threatened that they will be arrested and remanded to the judicial custody if they don''t appear on the said date and execute a cancellation deed for the sale deeds of the year 1996. They were further threatened that they will be arrested and remanded to the judicial custody if they don''t appear on the said date and execute a cancellation deed for the sale deeds of the year 1996. Hence, the plaintiffs had filed a petition for anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl O.P.No.4490 of 2019. The said Crl.O.P was disposed of with a direction to the Inspector of Police, ALG Cell, Team-16, CCB, to follow the procedure contemplated in section 41A of Cr.P.C. The order copy in Crl O.P dated 25.02.2019 is produced and marked as Ex.P25. 14. The learned senior counsel would further submit that based on the complaint dated 31.01.2018 filed by the 1st defendant, relying on two documents dated 20.05.1912 and 25.03.1953, which are the registered partition deed executed between the family members of the 1st defendant, which is produced as, Exs.P1 and P4. The properties mentioned in those documents have nothing to do with the schedule mentioned properties belonging to the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant is claiming title to paimash No. 366/1 and wants to call it as T.S.No.88 which is self-serving and not correct. In the proceedings before the Settlement Officer, it has been conceded that the plaintiffs vendor Venkatrama Reddiar has title over the T.S.No.88. He further submits that the 1st defendant''s claim based on the 1912 document cannot be decided by the police, and there is a joint patta which stands in the name of M.Venkatrama Reddiar, Raghava Reddiar, Govindha Reddiar, Salammal and Krishnamurthy Reddiar dated 29.05.1986, and that they are the absolute owners of the properties having purchased the same through the sale deeds executed in the year 1996 for valuable sale consideration. Now the 1st defendant is threatening to forcibly enter into the suit properties only through the document produced as Ex.P39 dated 14.02.2019 in which the plaintiffs have signed under threat and coercion. 15. He would further submit that on 15.02.2019 and 06.03.2019, the 1st defendant had damaged a portion of the compound wall on the southern side and also caused damage to the electricity shed, electric meter, bore well and zinc sheets in the suit property. The 1st defendant had also kept an notice board, in which it was written as “This place belongs only to the heirs of Govind Reddiar”. The plaintiffs are the owners who are in actual physical possession of the suit scheduled properties. The 1st defendant had also kept an notice board, in which it was written as “This place belongs only to the heirs of Govind Reddiar”. The plaintiffs are the owners who are in actual physical possession of the suit scheduled properties. Therefore he would pray this Court to decree the suit as prayed for. 16. Heard Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs. It is pertinent to note that the defendants in this suit have been set ex parte on 24..03.2022. 17. The suit had being initiated seeking for declaration that the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as MOU) dated 14.02.2019, as null and void and permanent injunction restraining the defendants and also for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- 18. From the pleadings, arguments and on perusal of the various exhibits, the following issues are framed for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were coerced to execute Exhibit P.39? 2. Whether the Exhibit P.39 document is null and void? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages? Issue No.1 and 2 19. The plaintiffs have sought for a prayer of declaration to declare that the MOU marked as Ex.P39 as null and void. A reading of Ex.P39 would reveal that the plaintiffs have agreed to execute documents in favour of the 1st defendant so as to him the perfect title of the suit schedule properties. In such a event the plaintiffs has to first prove that they have ostensible title over the properties. 20. The first plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and has produced and marked Exs.P1 to P.47; to substantiate that the properties stands in their name particularly the registered settlement deeds executed by the vendor''s predecessors, which is marked and produced as, Exs.P2 and P3. The registered sale deeds executed by the vendors in favour of the plaintiffs and late K.Kannaiah, as Exs.P7 to P9. Various other exhibits had also been relied upon by the plaintiffs to substantiate their predecessors interest in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 21. While that being so, there has been a claim over the right to property which had given rise to civil proceedings ending upon in second appeal before this court. Various other exhibits had also been relied upon by the plaintiffs to substantiate their predecessors interest in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 21. While that being so, there has been a claim over the right to property which had given rise to civil proceedings ending upon in second appeal before this court. The claim of the 1st plaintiff is that they have been into the custody of the 2nd defendant at the behest of the 1st defendant and were forced to execute Ex.P39 MOU, in favour of the 1st defendant. They were also coerced to hand over the original documents to the 1st defendant by 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs have also admitted that they were able to get back the original documents in the criminal proceedings initiated by them through taking out necessary applications. 22. It is pertinent to note that the alleged MOU marked as Ex.P39 is executed on 14.02.2019, and the present suit had being initiated before this court in the month of March 2019, suit summons had been duly served on to the defendants, but none has appeared before this court either in person or through their counsel. By order dated 24.03.2022 this court had set the defendants exparte and relegated the suit for recording of evidence before the learned Master. On very many occasions this suit has been listed before the learned Master and the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked various exhibits. 23. Learned senior counsel had taken me through the pleadings, exhibits and depositions of P.W.1 from which, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have title over the suit schedule properties. The defendants have not entered appearance to assail the statements made in the plaint. From a reading of Ex.P39 it could be seen that it was executed on 14.02.2019, and it is brought to the notice of this Court, that the 1st defendant in whose favour the MOU was executed has not sought for implementation of the same. While such being the circumstances, I am of the view that the claims made by the plaintiffs as to how the MOU Ex.P39, executed stands proved. 24. While such being the circumstances, I am of the view that the claims made by the plaintiffs as to how the MOU Ex.P39, executed stands proved. 24. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the prayer for a declaration has to be decreed by this Court declaring that the document styled as Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.02.2019 in which the signatures of the plaintiffs were obtained in the Old Commissioner of Police office at Egmore, Chennai-600 008 by S.Anbazhagan, Inspector of Police, ALG Cell, Team-16, CCB and the defendant by threat, coercion and duress is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. 25. In view of the above findings the issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No.3 26. In view of the findings arrived at issue No.1 and 2, the prayer for injunction claimed by the plaintiffs would have to automatically follow. Hence, issue No.3 is also answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No.4 27. The plaintiffs have sought for a damages of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the damages that had been caused by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs had made various averments to substantiate their claim and also in the proof affidavit of the 1st plaintiff he has in detail explained the nature of damages caused to his properties. Eventhough they have been substantiated by production of photographs and videographs marked as Exs.P27 and P28, the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence either documentary or oral to substantiate as to how they have quantified the damages that have been caused to them. When damages are not quantified, I am afraid that this Court cannot grant the relief of damages. Hence, the issue No.4 is answered as against the plaintiffs. 28. Considering the fact of trauma that the plaintiffs have been put by the conduct of the defendants, I am of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled for the cost of Rs.3,00,000/- apart from the value of the suit and also for the Court Fee paid. The defendants are directed to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,12,210/- towards court fees. In the aggregate, the plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,12,210/- lakhs as costs. 29. The defendants are directed to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,12,210/- towards court fees. In the aggregate, the plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,12,210/- lakhs as costs. 29. In the result, C.S.No.182 of 2019 is partly decreed as follows: (a) declaring that the document styled as Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.02.2019 marked as Ex.P39 were obtained under threat, coercion and duress and therefore null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiffs. (b) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants and anyone claiming under him or acting on his behalf from in any way dealing with the suit A. B and C schedule properties either by alienating or encumbering the same or in any other manner whats oever; (c) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and men and everyone claiming under him or acting on his behalf from in any way interfering with the plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit A, B and C schedule properties in any manner whatsoever, (d) directing the defendants to pay the cost as fixed.