Y.Padmanabha Prasad v. Rajendra Raja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 23.01.2019 DELIVERED ON : 31.01.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Tr.C.M.P.Nos.606 to 656 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.12772 to 12822 of 2017 Tr.C.M.P.No.606 of 2017 1.Y.Padmanabha Prasad 2.Y.Satyajit Prasad 3.Y.N.Rajyalakshmi .. Petitioners 2.R.Sasikumar 3.R.Pushparaj 4.Kalimuthu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.258 of 2009 pending on the file of For Petitioners For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 For Respondent No.4 Tr.C.M.P.No.607 of 2017 2.Ekambaram

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.367 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.608 of 2017 2.Kuppan 3.Kanni 4.Mathurai withdraw the suit in O.S.No.368 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.609 of 2017

2.Thasan 3.Ramaswamy 4.Sowbagyam withdraw the suit in O.S.No.369 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.610 of 2017 2.Venkatesalu Naidu 3.Srinivasulu Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.370 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3

Tr.C.M.P.No.611 of 2017 2.Chinnappan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.371 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.612 of 2017 2.Chitrai withdraw the suit in O.S.No.397 of 2011 pending on the file of

For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.613 of 2017 2.Ammuniammal withdraw the suit in O.S.No.398 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.614 of 2017 2.Mannar

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.399 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.615 of 2017 2.Doraiswamy 3.Bathirayan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.400 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.616 of 2017

2.G.Parthasarathy Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.401 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.617 of 2017 2.Ganesan 3.Kuchiammal withdraw the suit in O.S.No.402 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Died

Tr.C.M.P.No.618 of 2017 2.Obul Naidu 3.Subrayulu 4.Rangiah Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.403 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Tr.C.M.P.No.619 of 2017 2.Loganathan Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.404 of 2011 pending on the file of

For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.620 of 2017 2.Chellappa Achari withdraw the suit in O.S.No.405 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.621 of 2017 2.Savithri Ammal 3.Kothandaraman

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.406 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.622 of 2017 2.Raman 3.Elumalai 4.Balan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.407 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Tr.C.M.P.No.623 of 2017

2.Murugan @ Thonthu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.408 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.624 of 2017 2.Maree withdraw the suit in O.S.No.409 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died

Tr.C.M.P.No.625 of 2017 2.Govinda Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.410 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.626 of 2017 2.Subramanian withdraw the suit in O.S.No.421 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died

Tr.C.M.P.No.627 of 2017 2.Radha Krishnan 3.Kembu 4.Desan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.422 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.628 of 2017 2.Kamalammal withdraw the suit in O.S.No.423 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died

Tr.C.M.P.No.629 of 2017 2.G.Parthasarathy Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.424 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.630 of 2017 2.Seethapathi 3.Pappa 4.Dorai withdraw the suit in O.S.No.425 of 2011 pending on the file of

For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.631 of 2017 2.Abimannan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.426 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.632 of 2017 2.Dorai 3.Nandan

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.427 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.633 of 2017 2.Munnusamy Naidu 3.Kishtama Naidu 4.Gengathara Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.428 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Tr.C.M.P.No.634 of 2017

2.Bhoopathiammal withdraw the suit in O.S.No.429 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.635 of 2017 2.Tharaupathi Ammal 3.Papammal 4.Gopala withdraw the suit in O.S.No.430 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.636 of 2017 Y.Satyajit Prasad,New No.21, Old No.10,

2.Chengamma Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.435 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.637 of 2017 2.Nagiah Chetty withdraw the suit in O.S.No.436 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.638 of 2017 Y.Satyajit Prasad,New No.21, Old No.10,

2.Palayammal 3.Govindan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.437 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died For Respondent No.3 Tr.C.M.P.No.639 of 2017 2.G.Parthasarathy Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.438 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2

Tr.C.M.P.No.640 of 2017 2.Perumal 3.Elumalai 4.Govindan 5.Munivelu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.439 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died For Respondent Nos.3 to 5 Tr.C.M.P.No.641 of 2017 2.Manickam withdraw the suit in O.S.No.440 of 2011 pending on the file of

For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.642 of 2017 2.Natesan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.441 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.643 of 2017 2.Ramiah Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.442 of 2011 pending on the file of

For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.644 of 2017 2.Gangammal withdraw the suit in O.S.No.443 of 2011 pending on the file of For Respondent No.2 Died Tr.C.M.P.No.645 of 2017 2.Namperumal Naidu withdraw the suit in O.S.No.444 of 2011 pending on the file of

For Respondent No.2 Tr.C.M.P.No.646 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.M.Gopal withdraw the suit in O.S.No.143 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.647 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.R.T.Padminix

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.144 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.648 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.D.Gunavathi withdraw the suit in O.S.No.145 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.649 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad,

2.R.Madhavan 3.Sakila withdraw the suit in O.S.No.146 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.650 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.K.Padma withdraw the suit in O.S.No.147 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.651 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad,

2.R.Madhavan 3.T.Rajan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.149 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.652 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.A.Nagammal withdraw the suit in O.S.No.151 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3

Tr.C.M.P.No.653 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.D.Mohan withdraw the suit in O.S.No.154 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.654 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.M.Rajeswari 4.R.Parameshwari withdraw the suit in O.S.No.156 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 to 4

Tr.C.M.P.No.655 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.D.Vasanthi withdraw the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.656 of 2017 Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 2.R.Madhavan 3.R.Latha withdraw the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2012 pending on the file of For Respondent Nos.2 and 3

C O M M O N O R D E R These Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the Original Suits i.e. O.S.Nos.258 of 2009, 367 to 371 of 2011, 397 to 410 of 2011, 421 to 430 of 2011, 435 to 444 of 2011, 143 to 147 of 2012, 149 of 2012, 151 of 2012, 154 of 2012, 156 of 2012, 159 of 2012 and 162 of 2012 pending on the file of

2. Since the issue involved in all the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and the parties to the proceedings in all the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are one and the same, this Court is decided to pronounce a common order in all these Petitions.

3. The petitioners in Tr.C.M.P.No.606 of 2017 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.258 of 2009 now pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. Further, the second petitioner in the said Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions is the defendant in all other suits referred above.

4. All the suits referred above are pertaining to the lands situated at Morai Village, Saidapet Taluk, now bifurcated as Ambattur Taluk, comprised in Survey Numbers, i.e. 511, 489, 512/3P, 511/8, 510/5, 511/P, 510/2, 512/2, 513/1, 512/3, 512/3P, 514/P, 510/6P, 510/3P, 509/2P, 513/3P, 509/2P, 510/6P, 514/P, 510/2P, 507/1P, 489/P, 491, 509/2, 507/1P, 513/2, 510/4, 508/1P, 509/1, 513/3P, 508/P, 498/5, 494, 498/2, 498/3. The suit in O.S.No.258 of 2009 is filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect to the above said suit mentioned properties. In other suits, the respective plaintiffs seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deeds executed by the first respondent in favour of various persons, are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, and for the relief of permanent injunction.

Initially, when at the time of admitting the O.S.No.258 of 2009, the learned District Munsiff, Ambattur, granted an order of injunction in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, in revision the same order was confirmed by this Court, only after filing the suit in O.S.No.258 of 2009, the first respondent Rajendra Raja has filed the other referred suits.

5. According to the petitioners, after the Second World War, the lands pertaining to all the suits were derequisitioned to the respective land owners. Since the land use pattern had been changed, the land owners had decided to sell the lands, accordingly, the petitioners had purchased the properties in the year 1965 through 39 Sale Deeds. Subsequently, in the year 1976,

at the time of settlement proceedings, the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet, conducted enquiry and passed an order for the grant of ryotwari patta to the petition mentioned survey numbers in favour of the petitioners. During the time of settlement proceedings, neither the plaintiffs nor the first respondent appeared before the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet. However, the Settlement Tahsildar considered the relevant documents and passed orders in favour of the petitioners.

6. Thereafter, relying the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the petitioners and 46 other persons. During the time of passing orders, the Settlement Tahsildar classified the lands as assessed waste manavari, cart track, poramboke, temple poramboke, assessed waste dry, channel poramboke, puzhakal poramboke and road poramboke.

7. It is submitted on the side of the petitioners that after the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 58 of 1961 as amended by the Act 17 of 1970, the then Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Kancheepuram, initiated the action under the provisions of the Lands Ceiling Act and fixed the land holdings by publishing the draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 25.03.1981 and served a copy on the petitioners. After receipt of the said Notification, the petitioners filed their objections and the same was rejected by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms).

8. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioners prepared a Revision Petition under 82 of the Act before the Land Commissioner, Chennai and the same was dismissed on the ground of maintainability in view of the availability of an appeal provision under Section 78 of the Act. Accordingly, an appeal was filed before the Land Tribunal in L.T.C.M.A.No.86 of 1991 and the same was allowed on 04.05.1992, after allowing the appeal, the matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) for fresh disposal, in the light of the observations made by the Land Tribunal. Consequentially, based on the findings of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), the Deputy Secretary to the Government in his proceedings dated 16.02.1994 cancelled the Notification of the Revenue Department dated 21.09.1981, by which original Assignment Notification was issued. On 16.02.1994, the cancellation of the Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.

9. After cancelling the Gazette Notification, necessary changes had been carried out in the revenue records in the name of the petitioners and they were continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties by paying the gist upto the date and pattas have also been issued in favour of the petitioners.

Thereafter, the petitioners sold a part of the lands in different survey numbers in favour of their family members between the year 1995 and 2002 and pattas were also transferred in the name of the respective purchasers.

10. In the said circumstances, in the month of July 2009, the first respondent, who is the land grabber and benami of an influential politician, with the aid of political influence attempted to interfere with the possession of the lands without any semblance of right or title and thereafter, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.258 of 2009. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, both parties have filed a batch of Writ Petitions before this Court. When those Writ Petitions were heard in part, the first respondent filed around 52 suits before the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, for the relief of declaration and for consequential permanent injunction and now all the suits are in the stage of trial. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing these Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions.

11. On the other hand, by filing counter, the first respondent objected the petition averment on so many grounds. According to him, the first respondent is the absolute owner of the suit mentioned properties. The Settlement Tahsildar, violated the principles of natural justice and issued proceedings in favour of the petitioners. He had commenced and completed enquiry for vast stretches of about 160 acres and allowed patta for several individuals in a single day. The pattas issued in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners, as well as in the name of the petitioners are arbitrary, non-est in law and hence, the same are liable to be set aside.

12. It is further added that mere registering the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect to the suit mentioned properties without any valid title will not fetch a legal entitlement, since the alleged 39 sale deeds were relying upon irregular and illegal pattas issued by the Settlement Tahsildar, the same were not binding the first respondent. Further, the second petitioner is the Director of the said Company, he is not established as to what was the physical problem, which restraining him in attending the enquiry at Ambattur.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would further contend that the allegations levelled by the petitioners that the first respondent had been threatened by the higher police officials is false one. In fact, one of the Director in the petitioners' Company was the then M.P., in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and he had utilised his nexus with the politicians here to exploit the lands of Tamil Nadu by creating forgery documents through some innocent people with the

connivance of the local revenue authorities.

14. All the cases have been filed only for proving the legitimate rights over the lands in Morai Village through Government records. Filing the false complaints against the first respondent, by some third parties, who are no way connected with the suit properties is not a ground to withdraw the proceedings from the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur and to transfer the same to the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai.

15. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the first respondent has challenged the title deeds after 30 years from the date of its execution. In 1976 itself, the Settlement Tahsildar issued the proceedings in respect to the land in question in favour of the petitioners, thereby, all the suits filed by the first respondent are devoid of merits and having the latches.

17. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the land in question is initially comes under the category of inam land, only by misusing the official records, the sale deeds and pattas were created in favour of the petitioners, further, the properties are all agricultural properties. Hence, there is no necessity for the petitioners to purchase the said agricultural properties.

18. Now, the first point raised by the petitioners is related to the merits of the suit, in fact, the genuinity of the pattas and sale deeds have to be decided by the Civil Court only after completing the trial. So, the said reason stated by the petitioners is not relevant to decide the issue involved in these petitions.

19. Further, the petitioners have filed these petitions only to withdraw the all petition mentioned suits from the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur and to transfer the same to the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. Therefore, the

only issue raised in these petitions is whether the petitioners projected the sufficient cause for allowing these petitions or not. It is not necessary for this Court to decide the merits of the suits at this stage. So, the first contention raised by the petitioners is not a bonafide reason for allowing these petitions.

20. Secondly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the first respondent is the benami of one land grabber, only by using the political influence, the first respondent attempted to drag on the proceedings. In fact, with the active aid of a police officer in the rank of ADGP, the first respondent and one political person B.Ranganathan, chased the petitioners and unauthorisedly conducted house searches, further they lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. The said incident created a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the petitioners that the justice will be denied if the case is proceeded in the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. Accordingly, they will not be in a position to conduct the trial in a fair and fearless manner before the Court of Ambattur.

21. In support of the claim made by the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners indicated 2 cases, in which, one case is registered against the first respondent in Crime No.122 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 120B, 147, 447, 465, 471, 474, 420, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC, another one case indicated by the petitioners is registered in Crime No.19 of 2012, by the V6 Kolathur Police for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. Now on going through the particulars of the second case in the alleged occurrence, it is alleged one Bhuvaneswaran was murdered, further, in the said occurrence, it is alleged one B.Ranganathan, Ex.M.L.A. and his gang were involved, further, alleged on the side of the petitioners that the said B.Ranganathan, Ex.M.L.A. is the close associate of the first respondent, the petitioners herein apprehended in their minds that they will not be in a position to conduct the trial in a fair and fearless manner before the Court at Ambattur.

22. In response to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that in a case registered by the Kolathur Police, the first respondent is not added as an accused. Even though the petitioners alleged

that the first respondent is a benami of B.Ranganathan, Ex.M.L.A., he has not shown any proof to substantiate the said argument, so without any relevant documents, the petitioners unnecessarily connected the first respondent with one B.Ranganathan. Further, he contended that one of the Director in the petitioners Company is the Ex.M.P., he is having the man and muscle power, and till now, there is no untoward incidents are happened in the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. In the said circumstances, the prayer sought for by the petitioners is baseless one.

23. Now considering the submission made by either side, it is true that this Court ordered CBI enquiry in respect to Crime No.19 of 2012, which was registered by the Kolathur Police Station. In the said case, the above said B.Ranganathan, Ex.M.L.A. is involved, but in order to connect the said person with the case in our hand, no relevant documents were produced on the side of the petitioners. Further, either the petitioners nor the first respondent is not an accused in that case. Another one case indicated by the petitioners was registered against the first respondent in the year of 2009 and in the said case, the first respondent was arrested and granted bail.

In the said circumstances, without showing any relevant documents by way of connecting the first respondent and the petitioners with the alleged occurrence, we cannot hold that the first respondent is a influential person and he may disturb the Court proceedings in Ambattur, really, if the first respondent is a influential person there is no scope for registering the case against him. Moreover, after filing the suit in the year 2009 to till now, there is no untoward incidents are happened in a Court, in which, all the suits are pending. Furthermore, the distance between the District Munsif Court, Ambattur and the City Civil Court, Chennai is only 20 kms.

24. In usual, transfer should not be ordered for reasons of sentimentality. In this case, except the reason stated above on the side of the petitioners, they are not raised any serious allegations against the Court. Mere registering of the case in the year of 2009 against the first respondent alone is not a sufficient ground to transfer all the proceedings as requested by the petitioners. Further, without indicating the direct involvement of the petition mentioned B.Ranganathan, Ex.M.L.A., with the affairs of the either party, we cannot hold that he has acted and threatened the petitioners on behalf of the first respondent. The transfer can only be ordered when the party has reasonable apprehension when the justice will be denied to him. As already stated, without any untoward incident

between the petitioners and the first respondent from the date of filing of the suits to till date, raising apprehension in the minds of the petitioners is not necessary, thereby, the reasons stated by the petitioners is not a sufficient ground for allowing these petitions.

25. Accordingly, for the above said reasons, these Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sri To 1.The District Munsif Court, Ambattur.

+10 cc's to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate Sr.Nos.8635 to 8644 Common Order made in Tr.C.M.P.Nos.606 to 656 of 2017