← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1818/2016dismissed

Petchiammal v. Palanichamy

2018-06-20Honourable Mr Justice M.V. Muralidaran3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.06.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1818 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD) No.8748 of 2016 Petchiammal ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant -VsPalanichamy ... Respondent/Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.02.2016 made in I.A.No.151 of 2015 in A.S.No.71 of 2015 on the file of Sub-Court, Srivilliputtur.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumugam For Respondent : Mr.S.Muniyandi

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.311 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur and in the suit, the plaintiff / respondent herein sought for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 02.07.2015, as against which, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.71 of 2015 before the learned Sub Court, Srivilliputtur. During pendency of the appeal, the defendant filed I.A.No.151 of 2015, seeking for the relief of interim stay, which came to be dismissed on 06.02.2016, on the ground that the provisions of law stated by the defendant are inconsistent. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff / petitioner herein is before this Court.

2. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the plaintiff had filed the suit only in respect of the vacant land, suppressing the fact that there was a constructed house valued Rs.20 lakshs situated in front of the said land and she had been in possession of the property after obtaining prior permission from the Panchayat. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that the factum of a house being situated on the land has been duly proved by the defendant before the Court below and the same was also recorded by it. While so, the plaintiff, by showing the suit schedule property as an empty land, had obtained a decree in his favour and also attempted to trespass into the property of the defendant.

3. The revision petitioner states that in the event of interim stay not being granted during pendency of appeal before the Appellate Court, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner

and hence, it is prayed that the order of the Trial Court calls for interference by this Court so as to render substantial justice to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 28.04.2010 and also obtained loan from the State Bank of India, Rajapalayam, by mortgaging the said property with the Bank. The defendant, being aware of all the facts, had demanded more money from the plaintiff and spreading false averments as if the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff by force and coercion. The defendant, having executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and having received full sale consideration, has been causing hindrance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, it is stated that the petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material documents available on record.

6. The defendant had filed I.A.No.151 of 2015 under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for granting interim stay during pendency of A.S.No.71 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur. The stand taken by the petitioner/defendant was that though he had put up a construction in the suit property worth about Rs.20 lakhs, suppressing the same, the suit had been filed by showing the property as a vacant land, whereas the plaintiff had stated that the property was duly purchased from the defendant on remittance of sale consideration. The Trial Court, on consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidences and after full fledged trial, had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant has been attempting to some how succeed in the matter, which she was not able to achieve in the suit. Granting interim stay at this stage will amount to curtailing the plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of the decree, which is not permissible in law.

7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order dated 06.02.2016 made in I.A.No.151 of 2015 in A.S.No.71 of 2015 by the learned Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur is perfectly valid and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, a) this civil revision petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 06.02.2016 made in I.A.No.151 of 2015 in A.S.No.71 of 2015 by the learned Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur; b) the Appellate Court, namely, the learned Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur, is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(SAR-II) To:

1. The Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur.

2. The Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.

Copy To:

The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2 Copies) +1CC to Mr.S.MUNIYANDI, Advocate, SR.No. 68929 C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1818 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD) No.8748 of 2016 20.06.2018 AR ES/SV/SAR 2/23.07.2018/3P/6C