M. Nirmala Vs N.K. Selvaraj

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.08.2021

¶3

CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

C.R.P.NOS.2717 AND 4257 OF 2018
AND
C.M.P.NOS.16000 AND 23333 OF 2018

¶5

C.R.P.No.2717 of 2018

¶6

M.Nirmala
N.K.Selvaraj

¶7

...Petitioner
Vs.
...Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the order and decretal order
dated 04.04.2018 and made in I.A.No.74 of 2017 in unnumbered
C.M.A.No..... of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundaram
 for Mr.V.Bhiman
For Respondent: Mr.T.Dhanasekaran
C.R.P.No.4257 of 2018
N.K.Selvaraj
...Petitioner
Vs.
M.Praveen
...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the order and decretal order

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

dated 26.09.2018 made in I.A.No.778 of 2016 in O.S.No.64 of 2015
on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif,
Villupuram.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran

¶14

For Respondent: Mr.V.Sundaram for
 Mr.V.Bhiman

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

C.R.P.No.2717 of 2018 is directed to set aside the order
and decreetal order dated 04.04.2018 made in I.A.No.74 of 2017
in unnumbered C.M.A.No. ... of 2018 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. C.R.P.No.4257 of 2018 is
directed against the order and decreetal order dated 26.09.2018
made in I.A.No.778 of 2016 in O.S.No.64 of 2015 on the file of
the Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram.

¶17

2. N.K.Selvaraj, the respondent in C.R.P.No.2717 of 2018
instituted the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2015 against M.Nirmala for
permanent injunction. His case before the Munsif Court was that
the suit property was owned by M.Nirmala's husband-Mohanraj and
by an unregistered lease agreement dated 24.02.2012, she agreed
to induct him as a tenant on the monthly rent of Rs.5,500/-. It
is his further case that the landlord was not in the habit of
issuing receipt for payment of rent and on 22.01.2015, her
brother-Dinesh along with rowdy people asked him to vacate the
building. He immediately lodged a complaint with Villupuram Town
Police, but no action was taken. Hence, he filed the suit for
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering
his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property except due
process of law.

¶18

3. The suit was resisted by Nirmala contending that the
property was originally owned by her father-in-law Kushal Raj
and it was allotted to her husband-Mohanraj in a family
partition on 30.03.2004. He died intestate and thereafter, his
son Praveen filed the suit in O.S.No.158 of 2009 for partition
and it was allotted to him by a Judgment dated 10.07.2009.
Therefore, her son Praveen is the absolute owner of the
property. She has categorically denied the execution of lease
agreement dated 24.02.2012 and stated that it is a forged
document. Her further case is that the property was leased out
to one Veerappan and he was asked to vacate the premises to
carry out repair. Though he originally agreed, but subsequently
he had sublet the premises to his brother-N.K.Selvaraj. Along
with the suit, the said N.K.Selvaraj filed I.A.No.66 of 2015,
seeking interim injunction. The learned Principal District

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Munsif granted interim injunction on 25.06.2015, holding that
the documents produced by him, the lease agreement, electricity
bill, property tax receipt and the complaint would prove that
the petitioner is the tenant of the premises and an attempt was
made to evict him forcibly.

¶21

4. Aggrieved over the order, an appeal was filed by the
said Nirmala before the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram with a
delay of 767 days. The petition to condone the delay in
I.A.No.74 of 2017 was dismissed by the appellate Court.
Questioning the same, she has come up with the Revision in
C.R.P.No.2717 of 2018.

¶22

5. O.S.No.64 of 2015 was filed by M.Praveen against
N.K.Selvaraj for declaration of his title over the property and
recovery of possession. The plaintiff would state that the suit
'A' schedule property was allotted to him in a compromise decree
passed in the partition suit in O.S.No.158 of 2009. Since he was
a minor at that time, his mother-Nirmala was acting as his
guardian. He also stated that the defendant N.K.Selvaraj was
not a tenant under his mother and the unregistered rental
agreement dated 24.02.2012 is a fabricated one. The defendant is
an encroacher in 'B' schedule property and he is entitled for
recovery of possession.

¶23

6. In the written statement, the defendant-N.K.Selvaraj
has contended that he is a statutory tenant in the premises; the
lease agreement is genuine since one of the family members of
the plaintiff-Praveen has leased out the premises, he could be
evicted only in a Rent Control Proceedings and not by way of
suit. He filed I.A.No.778 of 2016 in O.S.No.64 of 2015 to reject
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The learned Judge
dismissed the same. Assailing the order, he filed C.R.P.No.4257
of 2018.

¶24

7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and
carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶25

8. In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that the
property was originally owned by K.Mohanraj and he died
intestate leaving behind his wife-Nirmala, son-Praveen and three
daughters. The suit in O.S.No.158 of 2009 was filed by Praveen
seeking partition. A compromise final decree was passed on
10.07.2009, thereby, he became the absolute owner of the
property.

¶26

9. O.S.No.26 of 2015 was filed by N.K.Selvaraj against
Nirmala, who is wife of deceased K.Mohanraj on the ground that
she inherited the suit property as a legal-heir of her deceased
husband-Mohanraj and let out the property to him under a
registered lease agreement dated 24.02.2012. It is pertinent to

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

note that he did not produce the original lease agreement and it
is stated that it was that the defendant-Nirmala. It is further
averred that the defendant did not issue receipt for the lease
amount received from him.

¶29

10. In the suit, a written statement was has been filed
stating that the property was allotted to Praveen in O.S.No.158
of 2009 vide Decree dated 10.07.2009 and in the unregistered
lease agreement, her signature was forged by the plaintiff-
Selvaraj. It is clearly stated that Selvaraj was not a tenant
and he is an encroacher. The same stand was taken by the said
Praveen in the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2015, filed for declaration
and recovery of possession of the suit property from Selvaraj.

¶30

11. As aforementioned, the learned Principal District
Munsif, Villupuram granted interim injunction in I.A.No.66 of
2015 holding that the documents viz., the unregistered lease
agreement, electricity bill, property tax receipt show that the
property was leased out to the said N.K.Selvaraj and he is in
possession of the property. At this juncture, it is relevant to
note that in my considered view, this observation cannot be
taken advantage by N.K.Selvaraj, since the execution of lease
agreement was seriously disputed by Nirmala and her son-Praveen.
Since the said N.K.Selvaraj was found in possession of the
premises, the learned appellate Judge, while dismissing the
Application in I.A.No.74 of 2017, has held that the suit has
riped for trial and the issue is not on title. Further the said
N.K.Selvaraj was being in possession of the property, whether he
is in illegal possession and the lease agreement is a forged
document can be decided in the trial, than in the interim
application.

¶31

12. I concur with the view taken by the learned Principal
Sub Judge, Villupuram in I.A.No.74 of 2017 for the reason that
even if the delay is condoned and the appellant-Nirmala is given
opportunity, the litigation would not reach finality in the near
future. It is must be mentioned that the plaintiff-Praveen
seeks declaration of his title in O.S.No.64 of 2015 on the basis
of a Decree passed in O.S.No.158 of 2009. He also contended that
the defendant was an encroacher and he was not a statutory
tenant. As already pointed out, the said Selvaraj neither
produced the original lease agreement, nor receipts for payment
of rent.

¶32

13. In the light of the averments made in the plaint in
O.S.No.64 of 2015 and the materials produced by the said
Selvaraj, in my opinion, the civil Court has jurisdiction to
decide the rights of the parties. The learned trial Judge
dismissed the application filed for rejection of plaint on the
ground that the jural relationship itself is disputed in the
suit and the title of the property is necessarily to be

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

determined by the civil Court. In the considered opinion of this
Court, the defendant-Selvaraj in O.S.No.64 of 2015 has not made
out any case to reject the plaint and it was rightly dismissed
by the trial Court.

¶35

14. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions are
liable to be dismissed, accordingly, they are dismissed. The
learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram is hereby directed
to dispose of both the suits O.S.No.26 of 2015 and O.S.No.64 of
2015 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
parties are hereby directed to cooperate for completion of trial
in the time frame. There is no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

r n s

¶41

To

¶42

1. The Sub Judge,
 The Sub Court,
 Villupuram.

¶43

2. The Principal District Munsif, Villupuram.

¶44

3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶45

+1cc to Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.41304

¶46

C.R.P.Nos.2717 and 4257 of 2018
and
C.M.P.Nos.16000 and 23333 of 2018

¶47

BR(CO)

¶48

RLP(27/09/2021)

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Nirmala v. N.K. Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Nirmala v. N.K. Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malathi Vs Rajakumari

R.Shanthi Vs P.Palanisami

K.Jothimani Vs K.Jayalakshmi

Sridharan Vs Ramesh

M/S, Expansia Projects and Development Pvt.Ltd., Vs Muniraj

P.Harikrishnan @ Harirajan Vs M.Settu