A.L. Manjula, v. A.K. Ramamoorthy,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.05.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN C.R.P.No.1576 of 2016 1.A.L.Manjula 2.A.L.Nirmal Kumar 3.A.L.Nishanath Kumar
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.A.K.Ramamoorthy 2.A.R.Sathish ... Respondents Prayer:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the Docket Order dated 22.03.2016 in O.S.No.68 of 2010.
For Petitioners :Mr.S.Kumaresan
O R D E R
The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.68 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants.
2.Heard Mr.S.Kumaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
3.The case of the petitioners is that the suit schedule mentioned property belongs to one Krishnaiya Naidu and as per partition deed vide document No.4931/1985 dated 09.10.1985, the first plaintiff by namely A.K.Lokaiya Naidu, who died during the course of suit and his father Krishnaiya Naidu and sons and wife of the Krishnaiya Naidu took partition the properties, the first defendant got the 'B' schedule of property. After the partition of the suit schedule property on 13.03.1991, the first defendant sold the property to the plaintiffs by oral sale after receiving full consideration, for the value of the amount before the village elders and handed over the possession of the property to the plaintiffs and the first plaintiff demanded to register the property, but the first defendant replied that after his daughter's marriage he would execute the sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff and believed his words and wait for a long period due to their relationship.
4.After the oral sale of the suit schedule property, the first
plaintiff put in possession without any interruption of the schedule property by paying kist and adangal and the same were filed in the suit. After that, the Tahsildar, Gudiyatham also issued the certificate to the first plaintiff for his possession of the property. In fact, in the 'B' schedule mentioned property, the house is situated and the plaintiffs alone are in the possession and enjoyment without any interruption by way of paying tax. Now, the respondents / defendants, who are strangers to the suit schedule property were try to attempt trespass in the property without any right over the property and therefore, the first plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule of property.
5.While pendency of the above suit, this petitioner has made a representation to the Tahsildar, Gudiyatham on 24.12.2012 with a request to issue possession certificate for the S.No.255/3A measuring 1.62 acres and S.No.255/4 measuring 3.57 acres situated at Amburampatti Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. When his request was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2091 of 2013 and the same was considered by this Court and a direction was issued to the Tahsildar,
Gudiyatham and to pass orders on his representation dated 24.12.2012.
6.One Mr.Gajendran, who was the Tahsildar at the relevant point of time working at Taluk Office, Gudiyatham was summoned and appear before the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham to examined him about the issuance of possession certificate to the plaintiffs. At the relevant point of time, the said Mr.Gajendran, who was the Tahsildar of Gudiyatham, now he has been promoted as Sub-Collector cadre. When the examination was took place on 22.03.2016, the learned District Munsif Judge, Gudiyatham closed the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs by stating that the said Gajendran, who was at the time of Tahsildar and now presently working as Sub-Collector was unable to produce the documents as sought for by the plaintiffs in the summon through the witness from 22.07.
2015 and sufficient opportunity was granted to the plaintiffs for producing the same. But on the said date i.e. on 22.03.2016, when the plaintiffs sought for an adjournment, the Court has declined their request and closed the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs and posted the case for defendants side evidence by 05.04.2016. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and it is evident that when the possession certificate was issued by the said Mr.Gajendran, who worked as Tahsildar, Gudiyatham and now presently working as Sub-Collector, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit is having right to seek for direction from the learned District Munsif Court to summon the present Tahsildar working at Gudiyatham with all relevant records and give evidence by marking the above documents before the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham. 8.On my considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to summon the Tahsildar, who is presently working at Gudiyatham in respect of the issuance of the said possession certificate and give evidence and mark documents before the said Court by which no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants.
Therefore, the Docket order dated 22.03.2016 made in O.S.No.
and other relevant documents in O.S.No.68 of 2010 by giving further opportunities to the defendants to make cross examination of the said Tahsildar, Gudiyatham. The learned District Munsif is directed to dispose of the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since, the suit is for the year of 2010, both the parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the suit.
9.Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. 26.05.2016 vs To The District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J vs C.R.P.No.1576 of 2016 26.05.2016