Tamil Nadu State Transport v. Like Ali, Muthavalli

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 08.02.2018 DELIEVRED ON : 28.03.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU C.R.P(MD)No.258 of 2018 (NPD) and C.M.P.(MD).No.1123 of 2018 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Tirunelveli, rep. by its Managing Director, No.19, Trivandrum Road, Vannarpet Road, Tirunelveli - 627 003. .. Petitioner /Judgment Debtor / Defendant Vs.

1.Like Ali, Muthavalli, Mohideen Kader Andavar Jumma Pallivasal, Selvamaruthur, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli District.

.. Respondent /Decree Holder / Plaintiff 2.The Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

3.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the District Collector, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli -9.

.. Respondents / Proposed respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 08.01.2018, passed in E.A.No.5 of 2018 in E.A.No.294 of 2017 in E.P.No.102 of 2017 in O.S.No.27 of 2003, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

For Petitioner :

Mr.V.Sasitharan For 1st respondent :

Mr.D.Nallathambi

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the order, dated 08.01.2018, passed in E.A.No.5 of 2018 in E.A.No.294 of 2017 in E.P.No.102 of 2017 in O.S.No.27 of 2003, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 2.A brief facts which are necessary to the disposal of this case are as follows:

The first respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction in O.S.No.27 of 2003 against the revision petitioner / defendant. According to the first respondent / Plaintiff, the suit property is a Wakf property. According to the revision petitioner / defendant, though they initially entered into a lease agreement with the 1st respondent / plaintiff, they came to know subsequently that it is a Government land and therefore, there is no need for vacating the property. After trial, the Tribunal had decreed the suit, against which a civil revision petition in C.R.P.(MD).No.740 of 2005 was filed by the revision petitioner / defendant and the same was also dismissed. Seeking a direction of this Court to the District Collector, Tirunelveli to assign the land in dispute in its favour, the revision petitioner / defendant had filed W.P.(MD).No.

20632 of 2017 and the same was disposed of on 09.11.2017, directing the District Collector, Tirunelveli to consider and dispose of the application of the revision petitioner / defendant within six weeks. In the meantime, the first respondent / plaintiff had filed E.P.No.102 of 2017 and the revision petitioner / defendant has filed E.A.No.294 of 2017 seeking to declare that the first respondent / plaintiff is not in lawful possession or title over the suit property. The revision petitioner / plaintiff has also filed E.A.No.5 of 2018 seeking to implead the respondents 2 and 3 herein in E.A.No.294 of 2017. After hearing both sides, E.A.No.

5 of 2018 was dismissed by the Court below holding that the proposed parties are not necessary parties, against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner / defendant.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / defendant would submit that the Principal Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the above application for impleading the proposed respondents in the claim petition filed before the Wakf Tribunal, Tirunelveli. While functioning as a Judge of the Wakf Tribunal, the Principal Subordinate Judge will loose all his powers and hence, the order impugned in this petition is without jurisdiction. He would further submit that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the issue with regard to the property of the Government and even in respect of Wakf property, eviction suit can be maintained only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (dead ) through LRs VS. Sugra Humayun Mirza

Wakf, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 726. He would further submit that as the suit property is the property of the Government, the proposed parties are necessary parties to be impleaded in the claim petition. Thus, he prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the proposed parties may be directed to be impleaded as the respondents 2 and 3 in the claim petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / plaintiff would submit that the suit has already been decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the civil revision petition filed by the revision petitioner / defendant has also been dismissed and therefore, the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. He would further submit that the proposed parties are not necessary parties as the issue involved between the revision petitioner / defendant and the first defendant / plaintiff has already been resolved. He would further submit that the revision petitioner / defendant has successfully dragged the matter about 15 years and with the very same intention, he has filed the said impleading petition and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the present civil revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / plaintiff and perused the records carefully.

6. The issue to be decided in this petition is as to whether the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner / defendant for impleading the proposed respondents 2 and 3 herein, is correct or not?.

7. Admittedly, the revision petitioner / defendant had entered into a lease agreement with the 1st respondent / plaintiff in respect of the suit property. But, subsequently, stating that it is a Government land, he denied the title of the 1st respondent / plaintiff. A valid decree for eviction has been granted in favour of the 1st respondent / plaintiff. As against the said judgment and decree, the revision petitioner / defendant has filed C.R.P.(MD). No.740 of 2005, wherein it has been held in paragraph Nos.5 to 8 as follows:

"5.It is admitted on either side, the defendant/revision petitioner in the written statement filed by them in the trial Court which reads as follows:

"The first defendant submits that they took lease of the plaint schedule land in survey No.240/1 measuring 1.25 Acres, out of 20.40 Acres in Tisayanvillai Village for a period of ten years, lease agreement was entered between the fist defendant and the plaintiff on 22.02.1993 w.e.f.01.02.1993 and the tenancy

expires on 31.01.2003."

6.Further a reading of the plaint, it was specifically mentioned as schedule property is a grama natham. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff to recover the suit property from the above said para mentioned in the statement and in the plaint the present suit filed for recover the property, which was leased to the first defendant by the plaintiff. It is clearly admitted that the first defendant entered in the suit property in pursuant of the lease agreement with the plaintiff herein. Hence, the plaintiff/first defendant has admitted that the title of the plaintiff had entered into a lease agreement for 20 years and enjoying the suit property as a lessee. Since the first defendant is enjoying the suit property, he cannot turn round and say that the first plaintiff is not the landlord. He is estopped from denying title by the plaintiff, since he entered in to the property as a tenant from present plaintiff, he is estopped from denying the title of the property, since he is a tenant of the suit property and for the reasons stated in the plaint is liable to be evicted.

7.Now, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property is a Grama Natham, and hence, the present plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and his submission cannot be considered at this stage. 8.Since the revision petitioner/defendant admitted the title of the first plaintiff, entered into the said agreement and he is a tenant under the plaintiff and he is liable to be evicted as per the tenancy agreement. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff is not a landlord to the petitioner cannot acceptable. Hence there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the lower Court, which warrants interference by this Court.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed."

8. As against that order, the revision petitioner / defendant did not file appeal. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the revision petitioner / defendant has filed the interlocutory application seeking to implead the respondents 2 and 3 herein. Admittedly, the execution Court cannot go beyond the scope of the judgment. More over, for the purpose of deciding the execution petition, the respondents 2 and 3 herein are not the

necessary parties. It appears that in order to drag on the matter further, the revision petitioner / defendant has filed the said interlocutory application. The Court below has rightly dismissed the said interlocutory application. There is no valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. In view of the above, this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

2. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 copies) + 1 cc TO Mr.D.Nallathambi , Advocate in SR No. 58706 + 1 cc TO Mr.V.Sasitharan , Advocate in SR No. 58826 gcg AE/SV MMS/SAR4/06.04.2018/5P/6C order made in C.R.P(MD)No.258 of 2018 (NPD) 28.03.2018