Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956
the Court-fees Act, 1870
The Indian Penal Code

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Madras High Court
Shri Rajasthani Jain Samaj ... vs K.Rohini on 17 April, 2013
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17 / 04 / 2013

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

C.S.NO.231 OF 2006






Shri Rajasthani Jain Samaj Educational Trust
Represented by its Managing Trustee
Harish L. Mehta
Son of Dr.C.L. Mehta
No.62, Bakrit Road, T.Nagar, 
Chennai  600 017.	 			 			.. Plaintiff 

Versus

1.   K.Rohini
2.   K.Kalyani
3.   V.Narasimhan
4.   K.Sundaram 
5.   K.Venkatachalapathy 
6.   R.Govindarajan
7.   Dhandapani 
8.   V.Subramanyan
9.   V.Rajappa
10.  The Estate of M.V.Arunachalam
     Represented by his legal heir A.Ravichandran
     No.II, Rangappa Reddy, 
     West Mambalam, Chennai  600 033. 					.. Defendants 







PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. for a judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:
		(a) for division of the suit property between the plaintiff and defendants by metes and bounds in the light of their right, entitlement thereto in the ratio of 58.33% and 41.67% respectively.

		(b) for a direction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to effect division of the property in the manner of their right and entitlement and in the event if the division is not feasible direct the defendants to sell 41.67% in favour of the plaintiff for a value to be fixed by this Court on payment of the balance sale consideration payable by the plaintiff herein.

		(c) for a declaration that the decree secured in O.S.No.3461 of 1972 forming the subject matter of E.P.No.2248/2001 is invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and consequently declare the same as unenforceable, void abinitio. 

		(d) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any the person or persons claiming through them from executing or implementing the decree obtained in O.S.No.3461/1972 in E.P.No.2248/2001 as against the plaintiff and their property morefully described in the schedule hereunder.

		(e) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property including running of a School under the name and style Dr.C.L.Metha Matriculation Higher Secondary School. 

		(f) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their man, servants, agents or any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering or demolishing the construction erected in schedule mentioned property in execution of the fraudulent decree secured in O.S.No.3461 of 1972 in accordance with law. 

		(g) grant such or further reliefs.

		(i) cost of the suit. 




For Plaintiff				:	Mr.R.Thiagarajan for Mr.K.Ravindranath

For Defendants 1  4, 6, 7, 9 and 10	:	Set exparte
		
For Defendant-8				:	Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan 




 

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff states that it is a Charitable Trust and that it is having educational institutions. The plaintiff purchased 58.33% share of the suit schedule property from the defendants 1 to 6, by a sale deed dated 29.04.2005, which is registered as document No.1944/2005, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam, Chennai.

2.The defendants 1 to 5 are the legal-heirs of Late Tmt.Kausalya. Defendants 1 and 2 are the daughters, 3 and 4 are the sons and fifth defendant is the husband of Tmt.Kausalya. The sixth defendant is the son of Late Tmt.Suseela. Tmt.Kausalya and Tmt.Suseela are the daughters of Late Thiru Venkatesa Sarma.

3.The said Thiru.Venkatesa Sarma has 3 sons and 4 daughters. The sons are Thiru V.Subramanian (D8), Thiru V.Rajappa (D9) and Thiru M.V.Arunachalam (D10). The daughters are Tmt.Kausalya, Tmt.Suseela, Ms.Ramadevi and Tmt.Rajeswari. Ms.Ramadevi was a spinster. The seventh defendant is the husband of Late Tmt.Rajeswari. When the suit was filed, all the four daughters were not alive.

4.Thiru Venkatesa Sarma executed a will dated 11.05.1973 bequeathing his various properties to his children. Later, he executed a codicil dated 25.01.1974. In the codicil, he appointed his daughter Ms.Ramadevi as executrix of the will. Thiru Venkatesa Sarma died on 06.10.1978.

5.Ms.Ramadevi filed a petition in O.P.No.531/1980 before this Court for probate of the will and for grant of letters of administration, which was converted into T.O.S.No.34/1982. The TOS was decreed and probate was granted by this Court on 06.03.1985.

6.Subsequently, without administering the estate of Thiru Venkatesa Sarma fully, Ms.Ramadevi died on 02.09.1986.

7.The eighth defendant filed a petition in O.P.No.533/1986 before this Court to grant him letter of administration to administer the estate of his father Late. Venkatesa Sarma.

8.Thiru V.Rajappa, Thiru M.V.Arunachalam, Tmt. Kausalya, Tmt.Rajeswari and Thiru Govindarajan S/o. Tmt. Suseela filed a petition in O.P.No.399/1989 before this Court to grant them letters of administration to administer the estate of Late Ms.Ramadevi.

9.A common order dated 06.02.1991 was passed in O.P.Nos.533/1986 and 399/1989 and the eighth defendant was granted letter of administration to administer the estate of his father Late. Venkatesa Sarma. Tmt.Kausalya, Tmt.Rajeswari and Thiru Govindarajan (son of Late Tmt.Suseela), who are the female heirs of Late Venkatesa Sarma, were granted letters of administration to administer the estate of Ms.Ramadevi.

10.O.S.A.No.19/1992 preferred by the eighth defendant questioning the grant of letters of administration in favour of the daughters in respect of the estate of Late Ms.Ramadevi was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court on 07.02.1992 and the common order dated 06.02.1991 referred to above was confirmed.

11.In the meantime, Thiru Venkatesa Sarma, while he was alive, filed a suit in O.S.No.3461/1972 before the Vth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking to evict the defendants therein from the suit schedule property. Ms.Ramadevi proceeded with the suit as executrix of the will executed by Late. Venkatesa Sarma, after the demise of her father. The suit was dismissed on 12.03.1980.

12.The suit schedule property in the present suit is the same as that of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.3461/1972. The judgment debtors in O.S.No.3461/1972 were running a school in the suit schedule property.

13.The appeal preferred by Ms.Ramadevi in A.S.No.198/1981 was also dismissed by the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, on 28.10.1981. The Second Appeal in S.A.No.809/1984 was allowed by this Court on 30.04.1998 and the suit in O.S.No.3461/1972 was decreed.

14.According to the plaintiff herein, Late. Venkatesa Sarma allotted the suit property to the eighth defendant in the will dated 11.05.1973 and that in the codicil dated 25.01.1974, the properties that were bequeathed to the eighth defendant stood revoked due to the condition in the codicil that the eighth defendant failed to come to terms with other children of Late. Venkatesa Sarma during his lifetime.

15.According to the plaintiff, as per the codicil, the suit schedule property would devolve upon the four daughters of Late. Venkatesa Sarma on the bequeath to the eighth defendant being revoked. That is, all the four daughters would set each 25% share of the suit schedule property, since Late Ms.Ramadevi was a spinster, her share would devolve equally on her siblings, namely three brothers and three sisters, due to her death. That is, the defendants 8 to 10 being the brothers of Ms.Ramadevi would get around 4.17% share each in the suit schedule property, due to the demise of Ms.Ramadevi. According to the plaintiff, the seventh defendant, being the husband of Tmt.Rajeswari, is entitled to 29.16% share in the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff acquired the remaining share of 58.33% of the suit schedule property from the legal-heirs of Tmt.Kausalya and Tmt.Suseela.

16.According to the plaintiff, having purchased the property from the legal-heirs of Tmt.Kausalya and Tmt.Suseela, the plaintiff became the co-owner and joint decree holder in O.S.No.3461/1972. Therefore, the eighth defendant cannot seek delivery of possession against the co-owner, by filing E.P.No.2248/2001 in O.S.No.3461/1972. Thus, E.P.No.2248/2001 is un-executable against the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, further, the decree in O.S.No.3461/1972 was obtained fraudulently.

17.In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition of the suit schedule property that the plaintiff is entitled to 58.33% share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also sought direction to the defendants to sell their 41.67% share in the suit schedule property, in favour of the plaintiff, for a value to be fixed by this Court, if the division is not feasible, on the ground that the plaintiff is running a school. The plaintiff also sought for various other reliefs. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit are as follows:-

"(a) for division of the suit property between the plaintiff and defendants by metes and bounds in the light of their right, entitlement thereto in the ratio of 58.33% and 41.67% respectively.

(b) for a direction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to effect division of the property in the manner of their right and entitlement and in the event if the division is not feasible direct the defendants to sell 41.67% in favour of the plaintiff for a value to be fixed by this Court on payment of the balance sale consideration payable by the plaintiff herein.

(c) for a declaration that the decree secured in O.S.No.3461 of 1972 forming the subject matter of E.P.No.2248/2001 is invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and consequently declare the same as unenforceable, void abinitio.

(d) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any the person or persons claiming through them from executing or implementing the decree obtained in O.S.No.3461/1972 in E.P.No.2248/2001 as against the plaintiff and their property morefully described in the schedule hereunder.

(e) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property including running of a School under the name and style Dr.C.L.Metha Matriculation Higher Secondary School.

(f) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their man, servants, agents or any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering or demolishing the construction erected in schedule mentioned property in execution of the fraudulent decree secured in O.S.No.3461 of 1972 in accordance with law."

18.The eighth defendant alone filed written statement and others remained exparte. The eighth defendant averred that under the will dated 11.05.1973, he was given three properties by his father, namely at (i) Door No.7, New No.12, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai (ii) present Suit property (iii) 1/6th share in the land in Pammal. He stated that in the codicil dated 25.01.1974, the bequeath was made as a conditional one and the same must be fulfilled before vesting of the legacies. The Codicil does not revoke the bequeath made in favour of the eighth defendant. It only put some condition that the eighth defendant would get the properties bequeathed to him, if he withdraws the suit and effects compromise with his father during his lifetime or he effects compromise with others, after the lifetime of his father.

19.The eighth defendant along with his brothers filed a suit in C.S.No.212/1962 before this Court against their father, for partition, claiming that the properties are joint family properties and the same were not acquired by his father Late. Venkatesa Sarma. The suit was dismissed on 21.04.1965.

20.The eighth and tenth defendants alone filed O.S.A.No.23/1966 and the same was dismissed on 19.06.1972. The will dated 11.05.1973 bequeathing three items of properties to the eighth defendant was made only after dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.23/1966. His father wanted that the properties should go to persons, whom he chose, according to the will. If the properties are joint family properties, it will operate only on his 1/4th share only. If the properties are his separate properties, the legatees chosen by him would get the properties. He wanted to dissuade the eighth defendant from disputing his right and therefore, he added a condition precedent in the Codicil, as stated above. He never intended to disinherit the eighth defendant. He stated in the Codicil that if the eighth defendant compromises, after his lifetime, the eighth defendant can get the legacy.

21.After the death of Late Venkatesa Sarma, when Ms.Ramadevi, being the executrix appointed in the Codicil dated 25.01.1974, filed O.P.No.531/1980 before this Court for probate of the will, the eighth defendant filed a supporting affidavit, along with others, except the tenth defendant. In view of filling of the supporting affidavit, he accepted his father's title to the properties. Ultimately, this Court granted probate on 06.03.1985 to Ms.Ramadevi, in O.P.No.531/1980. Hence, the eighth defendant succeeds to all the three properties under the will, including the suit schedule property. The eighth defendant disputed the claim of the plaintiff that the bequeath was revoked, as per the condition of the Codicil. He disputed the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property was inherited by the four daughters of Late Venkatesa Sarma, due to the revocation of the bequeath.

22.It is averred that on the death of Ms.Ramadevi, the eighth defendant filed a petition in O.P.No.533/1986 to grant him letters of administration, as he was the major sharer under the will. Nobody filed application seeking to grant them letters of administration for the estate of Late. Venkatesa Sarma. This Court, by an order dated 06.02.1991 granted letters of administration in O.P.No.533/1986, on the ground that the eighth defendant is the major sharer in the estate of Late. Venkatesa Sarma. The said finding was also confirmed in O.S.A.No.19/1992. None of the children of Late. Venkatesa Sarma disputed the same. The claim of the plaintiff that the bequeath made in favour of the eighth defendant was revoked, was disputed.

23.Further, when Ms.Ramadevi filed O.P.No.531/1980, she paid duty at the time of filing of the petition. The District Collector re-valued and demanded additional duty of Rs.1,328.60 in respect of the property at Door No.7, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam, that was bequeathed to the eighth defendant. Ms.Ramadevi requested the District Collector to collect the additional duty from the eighth defendant on the ground that the said property belongs to the eighth defendant as a legatee and he is in possession. The District Collector demanded additional duty from the eighth defendant and he also paid. If the legacy has been revoked, as averred by the plaintiff, the eighth defendant would not have got the property and she would not have asked the District Collector to collect additional duty from the eighth defendant.

24.The eighth defendant averred that on the death of Ms.Ramadevi, the properties, namely at old No.8, New No.13, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam, were inherited by her three brothers and three sisters. The eighth defendant got 1/6th share each from Tmt.Kausalya, Tmt.Rajeswari and Thiru V.Rajappa on 24.02.1995 and from Thiru M.V.Arunachalam and Thiru R.Govindarajan (S/o.Late Tmt.Suseela) on 05.05.1995, by way of execution of release deeds in favour of the eighth defendant.

25.In the said release deeds, it is admitted that the eighth defendant is in possession of Door No.7, New No.12, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam. The said property was bequeathed to the eighth defendant under the will and that the property belongs to the eighth defendant. The eighth defendant made Door Nos.7 & 8 as one unit and settled on his sons, daughters and son-in-law under various registered settlement deeds dated 19.06.1996. The settlees constructed flats and they are in possession. This would prove that the eighth defendant got legacy under the will.

26.Further, Late. Venkatesa Sarma mortgaged the property at Door No.7, New No.12, Rangappa Reddy Street and 34 grounds including the suit property to the T.Nagar Fund Limited on 21.09.1955. The mortgagee brought the property to sale. But, by mistake, some other property belonging to Ms.Ramadevi was sold to one Nelson.

27.Therefore, Thiru V.Rajappa, Thiru M.V.Arunachalam, Thiru R.Govindarajan, Tmt.Rajeswari and Tmt.Kausalya filed a suit in O.S.No.977/1987 and the eighth defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.1004/1987 challenging the sale. The two suits were compromised and a joint memo was filed. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.977/1987 were given the sale proceeds and the eighth defendant was given Rs.60,000/- being the the sale proceeds. The three female heirs had sold their legacies.

28.The only properties freed from the mortgage are Door No.7, New No.12, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam and the suit property. The original discharged mortgaged bond was directed to be handed over to the eighth defendant and the eighth defendant got the discharged bond. If the eighth defendant had not got the legacy, the original discharged bond could not have been given to him and the same could have been given to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.977/1987. The property at Door No.7, New No.12, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam and the suit property were bequeathed to the eighth defendant.

29.The eighth defendant averred that when this Court observed in S.A.No.809/1984 that the judgment debtors in O.S.No.3461/1972, who was running a school, to approach the owner of the suit property for purchase of the property, and the same must be favourably considered by the owner, the judgment debtors filed a suit in C.S.No.719/2000 against the eighth defendant for specific performance seeking direction to the eighth defendant to sell the suit property to them, thereby agreeing that the eighth defendant is the legatee of the suit property. The judgment debtors would not have wasted money in filing the suit against the eighth defendant, if the eighth defendant does not own the property. Further, as per the judgment and decree, the eighth defendant received a sum of Rs.82,000/- from the judgment debtors as damages for use and occupation of the suit property. They would not have given the amount to the eighth defendant, if the eighth defendant did not get the legacy. According to eighth defendant, the aforesaid undisputed facts would show that the eighth defendant is the sole owner of the suit property.

30.The eighth defendant, being the administrator appointed by this Court in O.P.No.533/1986, filed E.P.No.2248/2001 in O.S.No.3461/1972 for delivery of possession from the judgment debtors. The Executing Court passed an order dated 23.12.2004 in E.P.No.2248/2001 in O.S.No.3461/1972 directing the judgment debtors to deliver possession, after the end of academic year on 30.04.2005. In view of the order dated 23.12.2004 passed in E.P.No.2248/2001 in O.S.No.3461/1972 for delivery of possession, none would come forward to buy the property.

31.Taking advantage of the time granted by the Executing Court to judgment debtors to deliver possession at the end of academic year as the judgment debtors ran a school, the plaintiff purchased the alleged right of the judgment debtors and got possession of the suit property from them. Then, the plaintiff and the judgment debtors colluded and persuaded the defendants 1 to 6 to execute a sale deed dated 29.04.2005 for 58.33% of the suit property, when the documents show that the eighth defendant alone is the owner of the entire suit property. It was only to stall the execution proceedings.

32.The eighth defendant further averred that persons like the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff would seize the opportunity for grabbing the property fraudulently by a sale deed dated 29.04.2005 entered into with the defendants 1 to 6 for 58.33% of the suit property, when the defendants 1 to 6 have no title whatsoever in the suit property. The action of the plaintiff was only to stall the execution proceedings. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff contains false recitals regarding the will and Codicil as if the bequeath of the suit property and other properties made in favour of the eighth defendant was revoked. This is the basis for the purchase of the suit property in the sale deed dated 29.04.2005 (Ex.P15).

33.It is further averred that the agreement dated 29.04.2005 entered into between the plaintiff and the judgment debtors in O.S.No.3461/1972 gives a complete history of the litigation and also the orders in O.P.Nos.533/1986, 399/1989 and O.S.A.No.19 of 1992 declares that the eighth defendant is the major sharer of the estate of Late. Venkatesa Sarma and that he was granted letter of administration only on the ground that he was the universal legatee.

34.The eighth defendant also averred that the Appellate Court in A.S.No.198/1991 dubbed the judgment debtors as trespassers and that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the judgment debtors, who were trespassers of the suit property. The plaintiff obtained sale deed from the persons without title and the plaintiff obtained possession by trespass and made a false claim that a school is running in the suit property. When this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, the Advocate Commissioner gave a report that no school was running in the suit property.

35.The eighth defendant also stated in the written statement that no honest man would do this. No court can grant mandatory injunction directing the true owner to sell his property to anybody much less to a trespasser. It is not a case of incomplete, imperfect and inchoate title in respect of 41.67% share of the suit property as pleaded in the plaint. It is a case of no title. The plaintiff assumes that he has good title for 58.33% share of the suit property.

36.The eighth defendant further stated that the plaintiff is a transferee pendent lite. Its transferor raised an objection regarding the maintainability of E.P.No.2248/2001. Their objection was overruled and the order was upheld in C.R.P.No.1446/2003. The plaintiff claiming under the judgment debtors is bound by the order and its objection is barred by the principle of res judicata.

37.The eighth defendant stated that the plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser, but a trespasser. His act is a challenge to this Court and no property will be safe. If the plaintiff decides to purchase any property, the plaintiff would trespass into the property and falsely claim all philanthropic activities in the trespassed property and would unabashedly come to Court and pray for direction to the real owner to sell the property. The eighth defendant stated that the suit claim is false to the knowledge of the plaintiff and vexatious. The eighth defendant stated that he is entitled to compensatory cost.

38.This Court framed the following issues that arise for determination in the suit:

"1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for division of suit properties between the plaintiff and the defendants at the ratio of 58.33% and 41.67% respectively by metes and bounds?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the decree in O.S.No.3461 of 1992 containing the suit property as subject matter is invalid, unenforceable, void ab initio, and non est in the eye of law?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants from in any way executing the decree in O.S.No.3461 of 1992 in E.P.No.2248 of 2001 as against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property?

4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property including the running of a school under the name and style of Dr.C.L.Mehta Matriculation Higher Secondary School?

5)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or demolishing the construction erected in the schedule mentioned property in execution of the decree in O.S.No.3641 of 1972?

6)Is not the 8th defendant on the facts set out in written statement the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property?

7)Is not the plaintiff a trespasser, claim joint possession with the true owner of the suit property and benefit under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act and suit property valued and Court fee paid proper?

8)Whether the plaintiff derives title to 58.33% suit property by the purchase made from defendants 1 to 6 without any title, possession and covered under the order of ejectment?

9)Is the declaration relief (c) to set aside the decree made in O.S.No.3461 of 1972 maintainable by separate suit and not barred by Section 47 CPC?

10)Has not suit abated in its entirety on account of abatement of the death of 7th defendant and 9th defendants?

11)Is the suit against dead person (i.e.) 10th defendant maintainable?

12)Is not the suit barred by the principle of res judicata?

13)Is not the 8th defendant entitled for exemplary cost?

14)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?"

39.Since the eighth defendant was aged above 94 years, as on the date, he filed a petition to record his evidence as de bene witness and accordingly, he was examined first and 23 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D23. During the cross examination of P.W.1, the agreement dated 29.04.2005 entered into between the plaintiff and the judgment debtors was marked as Ex.D24. The Advocate Commissioner's report is also taken on record.

40.On the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses, namely S.V.Krishnan, Manager of the Trust was examined as P.W.1 and L.Uday Metha one of the Trustees was examined as P.W.2 and 50 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P50.

41.Heard the submissions made on either side. The learned counsel on either side filed written arguments.

42.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following judgments:

		(i) 	COL. ANIL KAK (RETD.) VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 			INDORE AND OTHERS [2005 (7) SCALE 356]

		(ii)	JAGDISH DUTT AND ANOTHER VS. DHARAM PAL AND 			OTHERS [1999 (3) SCC 644]

		(iii)	ANAND PRASAD AGARWALLA VS. TARKESHWAR PRASAD 			AND OTHERS [2001 (5) SCC 568]
    
		43.The learned counsel for the eighth defendant relied on the following judgments:
		(i)	T.ARIVANDANDAM VS. T.V.SATYAPAL AND ANOTHER 			[1977 (4) SCC 467].

		(ii) 	S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS. VS. 				JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS 
			[AIR 1994 SC 853]

		44.ISSUES NOS.1, 6 AND 8

"1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for division of suit properties between the plaintiff and the defendants at the ratio of 58.33% and 41.67% respectively by metes and bounds?

6)Is not the 8th defendant on the facts set out in written statement the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property?

8)Whether the plaintiff derives title to 58.33% suit property by the purchase made from defendants 1 to 6 without any title, possession and covered under the order of ejectment?

(a) The plaintiff purchased 58.33% share of the suit property from the defendants 1 to 6 on the ground that the suit property that was bequeathed to the eighth defendant was revoked in the will dated 11.05.1973 (Ex.P1) read with Codicil dated 25.01.1974 (Ex.P2) executed by Late Venkatesa Sarma. Following is the recital in the sale deed dated 29.04.2005 (Ex.P15):

"AND WHEREAS the said Sri.M.Venkatesa Sharma died on 06/10/1978 and during his life time had executed a Will dated 11/05/1973, bequeathing the entire Schedule A mentioned property in favour of his eldest son Sri.V.Subramaniam and thereafter due to some misunderstanding with his son Sri.V.Subramaniam, the said Sri.M.Venkatesa Sharma, executed a Codicil dated 25/01/1974 wherein the said Sri.M.Venkatesa Sharma revoked the bequeathal in favour of his son Sri.V.Subramaniam, and bequeathed in entirety the Schedule A mentioned property to his four daughters namely Miss.V.RAMADEVI, Mrs.V.KAUSALYA, Mrs.V.SUSEELA and Mrs.V.RAJESWARI, to be divided among themselves under four equal shares."

In the said will dated 11.05.1973, three properties were bequeathed to the eighth defendant. Those properties are at (i) Door No.7, New No.12, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai (ii) present Suit property and (iii) 1/6th share in the land in Pammal. The relevant passage relating to the bequeath of those properties in favour of the eighth defendant in Ex.P1  reads as follows:

"SCHEDULE:

(a) V.Subramanyam (eldest son) House and vacant site, together with the well in the back yard therein, bearing Door No.7, Rangappa Reddy Street, in present Corporation division, 117, West Mambalam, Corporation of Madras, belong to all in common. The common passage is upto a distance of 6 ft. on the east from the well. From there, the entire house, and the vacant site thereon. He shall discharge the loan over this property, so far as his portion is concerned. He shall also pay all the taxes due, for this. He shall take the entire site of an extent of 5/ 1/4th ground on which, an unrecognised school is running, within Corporation Division 116, West Mambalam, Madras belonging to me and in respect of which a suit O.S.No.3461/72 on the file of 5th City Civil Court, Madras, for eviction, is pending. He shall discharge the loan due over these sites to the extent of his share therein. Further, he shall also take one-sixth share in the entire vacant site set out supra, in common, in Pammal."

The bequeath was made as a conditional one in the Codicil dated 25.01.1974 (Ex.P2). As per the Codicil, the eighth defendant should come to terms to his father Venkatesa Sarma during his lifetime or he should compromise with his brothers and sisters after the lifetime of his father Venkatesa Sarma. The plaintiff purchased 58.33 % share in the suit property based on the said condition. According to the plaintiff, the bequeath made in favour of the eighth defendant was revoked due to the aforesaid condition. In this regard, the relevant passage, in the Codicil dated 25.01.1974 (Ex.P2) is extracted hereunder:

VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED Therefore, the plaintiff shall prove before this Court that the bequeath made in favour of the eighth defendant was revoked due to the aforesaid condition in the Codicil.

(b) The litigation that is referred to in the above passage in the Codicil is the suit filed by the defendants 8 to 10 in C.S.No.212/1962 before this Court against their father Late Venkatesa Sarma for partition claiming that the properties are joint family properties and the same were not acquired by his father. The said suit was dismissed on 21.04.1965.

(c) The defendants 8 and 10 filed O.S.A.No.23/1966 and the same was also dismissed on 19.06.1972.

(d) While so, Late Venkatesa Sarma executed the will dated 11.05.1973 bequeathing the three items of properties to the eighth defendant. Later, Codicil was executed by Late Venkatesa Sarma putting the aforesaid condition.

(e) In my view, the plaintiff has failed to prove the same. On the other hand, the eighth defendant is able to establish that the bequeath was not revoked and he is the sole owner of the suit schedule property as per the will dated 11.05.1973, for the reasons given below.

(f) After the death of Late Venkatesa Sarma, the executrix, namely Ms.Ramadevi filed a petition in O.P.No.531/1980 before this Court for probate of the will. In respect of the same, the eighth defendant filed a supporting affidavit in Ex.D20 and the contents of the same is extracted hereunder:

"Affidavit of V.Subrahmanyam I, V.Subrahmanyam Son of Venkatesa Sarma Hindu aged about 63 years residing at No.12 Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam, Madras. 33 do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows:-

1. I am one of the sons of M.Venkatesa Sarma the deceased abovenamed, who left a Will and Codicil appointing one of my sisters V.Ramadevi the petitioner abovenamed as Executrix. My sister V.Ramadevi has now filed the above O.P. praying for probate of the will dated 11th May 1973 executed by my late father M.Venkatesa Sarma and the additional Will or Codicil dated 25th January 1974, executed by the late father. As a son of Late Venkatesa Sarma I have no objection for granting probate of the Will and Codicil of my late father to the petitioner Miss.V.Ramadevi."

(g) In Ex.D20, the eighth defendant has categorically stated that he has no objection for granting probate of the will and Codicil of his father Late Venkatesa Sarma to Ms.Ramadevi. In view of this affidavit, the eighth defendant has agreed that the properties bequeathed in the will were not the ancestral properties and the same were the separate properties of his father. Thus, he came to terms with others, by filing the said affidavit Ex.D20. Therefore, the eighth defendant became the owner of the three properties that were bequeathed to him in the will in Ex.P1.

(h) Furthermore, none of the brothers and sisters of the eighth defendant claimed that the bequeath made in favour of the eighth defendant was revoked. In fact, others recognised that the eighth defendant was the sole owner of the properties that were bequeathed to him under the will. When the District Collector wanted payment of additional duty in respect of one of the properties that was bequeathed to the eighth defendant, Ms.Ramadevi informed the District Collector to collect the same from the eighth defendant. The eighth defendant also paid the additional duty. Exs.D1 to D3 establish the aforesaid facts.

(i) Furthermore, the properties at old No.8, New No.13, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam was allotted to Ms.Ramadevi under the will. On her death, the three brothers and three sisters inherited the same. Since the eighth defendant was allotted Door No.7, New No.12, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam, through the will, he wanted to acquire the property at old No.8, New No.13, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam and accordingly, the three brothers and 3 sisters of the eighth defendant executed release deeds in favour of the eighth defendant. Exs.D4, D5 and D6 prove the same. At the time of execution of release deeds, all the brothers and sisters, except Tmt.Suseela, were alive. In the case of Tmt.Suseela, her only son R.Govindarajan executed the release deed. The eighth defendant made Door Nos.7 and 8, Rangappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam as one unit and settled the property to his sons, daughter and son-in-law through Exs.D8, D9 and D10.

(j) The aforesaid facts and more particularly, Ex.D20 make it very clear that the eighth defendant accepted that the properties were not ancestral properties and the same were that of his father. Hence, the very basis of purchase of 58.33% share of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff goes.

(k) Further, the suit property was the subject matter of O.S.No.3461/1972, before the Vth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, that was filed by Late Venkatesa Sarma to evict the defendants therein from the suit schedule property. After the death of Late Venkatesa Sarma, Ms.Ramadevi, being the executrix, continued the suit. The suit was dismissed on 12.03.1980. The appeal preferred by Ms.Ramadevi in A.S.No.198/1981 was dismissed by the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, on 28.10.1981. The first Appellate Court, though held that the defendants therein were trespassers, did not grant decree, as there was no probate of the will executed by Late Venkatesa Sarma. The Second Appeal in S.A.No.809/1984 was allowed by this Court on 30.04.1998, based on the probate granted by this Court on 06.03.1985 in O.P.No.531/1980.

(l) Taking note of the fact that the defendants in O.S.No.3461/1972 were running a school in the suit schedule property, this Court, in the judgment dated 30.04.1998, in S.A.No.809/1984, directed the judgment debtors to approach the decree holder for lease or outright purchase of the suit schedule property and in such event, the decree holder was directed to consider the same sympathetically. Against the judgment dated 30.04.1998 passed in S.A.No.809/1984, SLP in SLP No.14014/1998 was preferred and the same was dismissed on 19.11.1998.

(m) Based on the observation made in S.A.No.809/1984, the defendants therein filed a suit in C.S.No.719/2000 for specific performance seeking direction to the eighth defendant herein to execute a sale deed of the suit schedule property in their favour. They also prayed for interim injunction against executing the decree in O.S.No.3461/1972 and the same was rejected. Appeal preferred in O.S.A.No.76/2002 challenging vacation of interim injunction was also dismissed. SLP No.9194/2002 filed by the judgment debtor against the order in O.S.A.No.76/2002 was also dismissed on 27.01.2003. Further, the judgment debtors paid damages as decreed to the eighth defendant. These facts make it clear that the judgment debtors have admitted the right and title of the eighth defendant in the suit property.

(n) The eighth defendant proceeded to execute the decree in O.S.No.3461/1972, as he was appointed as the administrator of the estate of Late Venkatesa Sarma by this Court in O.P.No.533/1986, after the death of Ms.Rama Devi, since the eighth defendant is the major sharer in the will executed by his father. The executing Court passed an order dated 23.12.2004 to hand over possession of the suit schedule property after 30.04.2005, the end of academic year for the school.

(o) At this juncture, the judgment debtors in O.S.No.3461/1972 entered into an agreement dated 29.04.2005 - Ex.D24 with the plaintiff for the sale of the suit schedule property and the school. In the agreement, it is stated that the bequeath of the suit schedule property made in favour of the eighth defendant in the will was revoked. As per the said agreement, the judgment debtors approached the defendants 1 to 6 to sell 58.33% undivided share of the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 to 6 agreed to sell 58.33% share in the suit schedule property and the sale deed dated 29.04.2005 (Ex.P.15) was executed in this regard in favour of the plaintiff.

(p) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed E.A.No.3825/2005 in E.P.No.2248/2001 on 10.06.2005 to record itself as an obstructor. The same was dismissed by the executing Court on 09.11.2005.

(q) Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD) No.831/2006 preferred against the order dated 09.11.2005 in E.A.No.3285/2005 in E.P.No.2248/2001 in O.S.No.3461/1972 was dismissed by this Court on 07.11.2006. In the said judgment dated 07.11.2006, this Court, in para 2, has held as follows:

"2............ The 1st respondent, during the life time of his father accepted the character of his father's property as his absolute property and compromised with him during his life time......"

(r) In the meantime, the plaintiff filed the present suit with the aforesaid prayer. The plaintiff also sought for interim injunction restraining the defendants herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in O.A.Nos.259 to 261 of 2006 and obtained interim injunction. The defendants filed application Nos.1546 to 1548 of 2006 for vacating the interim orders. This Court vacated the interim orders and rejected the applications seeking interim injunction by an order dated 12.04.2006.

(s) The plaintiff filed O.S.A.Nos.139 to 141 of 2006 against the said order dated 12.04.2006 passed in O.A.Nos.259 to 261 of 2006 and Application Nos.1546 to 1548 of 2006 in C.S.No.231 of 2006. The First Bench of this Court dismissed O.S.A.Nos.139 to 141 of 2006 on 25.07.2006. The First Bench of this Court has recorded the following findings in para 2 of its judgment dated 25.07.2006:

"2.......... The 8th respondent, during the life time of his father, accepted the character of his father's property as his absolute property and compromised with him during his life time............"

(t) In view of the aforesaid findings in C.R.P.(NPD) No.831/2006 and O.S.A.Nos.139 to 141 of 2006, there is no basis for the plaintiff to contend that the bequeath made in favour of the eighth defendant was revoked. Hence, the eighth defendant is the sole owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 to 6 have no title whatsoever in the suit schedule property. Therefore, they cannot execute a valid sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, issue Nos.1, 6 and 8 are decided against the plaintiff and decided in favour of the eighth defendant.

45.ISSUE NOS.2, 9 AND 12:-

"2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the decree in O.S.No.3461 of 1992 containing the suit property as subject matter is invalid, unenforceable, void ab initio, and non est in the eye of law?

9)Is the declaration relief (c) to set aside the decree made in O.S.No.3461 of 1972 maintainable by separate suit and not barred by Section 47 CPC?

12)Is not the suit barred by the principle of res judicata?"

(a) Admittedly, the decree in O.S.No.3461/1972 is a contested decree and it has reached its finality. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the judgment debtors who lost the suit. Further, I have held above for the issue Nos.1, 6 and 8 that the defendants 1 to 6 have no title for the suit schedule property to execute the sale deed (Ex.P15). The plaintiff filed a suit only after delivery of possession was ordered by the executing Court on 23.12.2004 in E.P.No.2248/2001 (Ex.P4). After the executing Court ordered delivery of possession, the judgment debtors entered into an agreement dated 29.04.2005 (Ex.D24) selling away its right in the school and received Rs.25,00,000/- and by way of a sale deed dated 29.04.2005 (Ex.P15), defendants 1 to 6 executed a sale deed selling away 58.33% share of the suit schedule property.

(b) The aforesaid facts make it clear that the plaintiff is transferee lis pendent lite. Since the plaintiff stepped into the shoe of the judgment debtors, being the transferee, they cannot seek declaration that the decree in O.S.No.3461/1972 is invalid.

(c) For the purpose of this case, Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is extracted hereunder:

"(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

[Explanation I. For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II.(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and

(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.]"

(d) In this case, even though the plaintiff is a third party, they claimed right only through the judgment debtors, who suffered the decree and the plaintiff is none other than the representative of the party to the suit and as such, if at all the plaintiff wanted to question the executability of the decree, they should have filed only an application under Section 47 C.P.C., and they cannot maintain the present suit and the same in clearly barred by Section 47 C.P.C.

(e) The issues pursuant to the rights of the parties were already tried and dealt with in O.S.No.3461/1972 and as such, the present suit amounts to a re- trial and thus, the present suit is clearly hit by the principles of res judicata, as per Section 11 C.P.C. Accordingly, issues 2, 9 and 12 are decided against the plaintiff and decided in favour of the eighth defendant.

46.ISSUE NOS.3, 4 AND 5:-

"3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants from in any way executing the decree in O.S.No.3461 of 1992 in E.P.No.2248 of 2001 as against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property?

4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property including the running of a school under the name and style of Dr.C.L.Mehta Matriculation Higher Secondary School?

5)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or demolishing the construction erected in the schedule mentioned property in execution of the decree in O.S.No.3641 of 1972?"

Since issue Nos.1, 6 and 8 are decided in favour of the eighth defendant and against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek permanent injunction against the rightful owner. Hence, issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 relating to injunction are also decided against the plaintiff.

47.ISSUE NO.7:-

"7)Is not the plaintiff a trespasser, claim joint possession with the true owner of the suit property and benefit under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act and suit property valued and Court fee paid proper?"

In view of the findings in issue Nos.1, 6 and 8, the plaintiff becomes the trespasser and being the trespasser, they cannot claim joint possession with the true owner of the suit schedule property. If they cannot claim joint possession, the benefit under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act, is not available to them. Hence, the suit it not properly valued and the Court fee was not paid properly. Issue No.7 is answered accordingly.

48.ISSUE NO.10:-

"10)Has not suit abated in its entirety on account of abatement of the death of 7th defendant and 9th defendants?"

Admittedly, the plaintiff did not take any steps to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendants 7 and 9. As such, the suit is abated as against the defendants 7 and 9. In any event, though the suit is not abated against the other defendants, in its entirety, since the suit is barred by res judicata and also barred under Section 47 C.P.C., and that the plaintiff cannot claim any right or interest over the suit schedule property, the finding regarding this issue is redundant.

49.ISSUE NO.11:-

"11)Is the suit against dead person (i.e.) 10th defendant maintainable?"

It is well established principle of law that suit against a dead person is not maintainable. In this case, suit is filed against a dead person (D10). Hence, the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, issue No.11 is answered against the plaintiff.

50.ISSUE NO.13:-

"13)Is not the 8th defendant entitled for exemplary cost?

(a) The eighth defendant, in the written statement, claimed only compensatory cost. Compensatory cost relates to actual quantum of loss suffered by the eighth defendant, due to the institution of the suit. The eighth defendant has not quantified the actual loss and there is no evidence in this regard. Hence, the eighth defendant cannot claim cost by way of compensatory cost, but the same could not preclude this Court from awarding exemplary cost, if it so warrants. The purpose of awarding exemplary cost is to warn the future litigants against any such false and vexatious proceedings. If this Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is false, vexatious and abuse of process of law, then this Court has ample power to award exemplary cost.

(b) The aforesaid discussion, particularly with respect to issue Nos.1, 6 and 8, make it clear that the plaintiff has ventured to purchase the property with full knowledge that the property is the subject matter of the litigation and the said litigation ended in favour of the decree holder. The various proceedings initiated by the judgment debtor and later by the plaintiff make it clear that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law.

(c) This Court has clearly held in the order dated 25.07.2006 in O.S.A.Nos.139 to 141 of 2006 that the present proceedings were abuse of process of the Court. The relevant passage in para 2 of the said order dated 25.07.2006 is extracted hereunder, in this regard:

"2........... In our considered view, the present proceedings are an abuse of process of the Court and deserves in limine dismissal.........."

(d) O.S.A.Nos.139 to 141 of 2006 arose out of interim orders passed in this suit. Thus, the aforesaid findings of the Division Bench applies to the present suit also. In fact, having held that it is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court, even at this juncture, the suit could have been dismissed invoking Order VII Rule XI CPC as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in T.ARIVANDANDAM VS. T.V.SATYAPAL AND ANOTHER [1977 (4) SCC 467].

(e) Further, as held by the Supreme Court in its judgment in S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS. VS. JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS [AIR 1994 SC 853] the plaintiff should come to this Court with clean hands. But admittedly, they did not come with clean hands. In this regard, para 7 of the judgment in S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU's case (cited supra) is extracted hereunder:

"7....... One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."

(f) This Court, in para 11 of the judgment in C.R.P.(NPD) No.831/2006 dated 07.11.2006, which is connected to this case, has held as follows:

"11.In fact, the petitioner abused the process of law and got into possession of the property from persons who are declared as trespassers and deserves no indulgence. The petitioner as a transferee pendente lite as per Order 21 Rule 102 is not entitled to claim any relief under Order 21 Rule 99 to 101 CPC........"

(g) In view of my conclusion that the plaintiff did not come with clean hands and also was a trespasser of the property, particularly after possession was directed to be handed over to the eighth defendant, the plaintiff shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the eighth defendant as an exemplary cost. Issue No.13 is answered accordingly.

51.ISSUE NO.14:-

"14)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

In view of the aforesaid findings, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

52.Further, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff are of no use.

(i)COL. ANIL KAK (RETD.) VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE AND OTHERS [2005 (7) SCALE 356] This case arose out of interim order. Hence, at the outset, the same is not applicable to the present case on hand. Further, the suit therein was for permanent injunction restraining the respondents (defendants) in the suit from interfering with the possession of the suit land allegedly held by the appellant before the Supreme Court including the school building constructed thereon. Interim injunction was also sought not to demolish the construction. The Trial Court granted interim injunction in favour of the appellant, but confined it to an area of 16000 SFT and the construction thereon and also restrained the appellant from putting up any construction outside the same. The appellant preferred appeal since the interim injunction was confined only to an area of 16000 SFT. The Additional District / Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the injunction was to be operative in respect of the entire plaint schedule property and the structures thereon. Thereafter, revision was preferred to the High Court. The High Court restored the Trial Court's order confined the interim order to an area of 16000 SFT. The matter went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on 12.07.2003 granted stay of the operation of the High Court order. Finally, the Supreme Court directed the interim order dated 12.07.2003 granted by the Court could be maintained until the disposal of the suit and a direction was issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit, within a period of six months. Hence, I am not able to understand as to how the said judgment would render any assistance to the plaintiff.

(ii) JAGDISH DUTT AND ANOTHER VS. DHARAM PAL AND OTHERS [1999 (3) SCC 644] In that case, the appellants therein instituted a suit for ejectment. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the First Appeal and the Second Appeal also ended in favour of the appellants. SLP preferred was also dismissed. When the appellants sought to execute the decree, the judgment debtor claimed that he had purchased the undivided interest of the coparcener in the Hindu undivided family of the decree holder and therefore, the decree cannot be executed against him. The same was upheld by the executing Court and the matter was challenged by the appellants before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the executing Court and remitted the matter to the executing Court to investigate the quantum of share purchased by the judgment debtor. The same was questioned by the appellants before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in the said circumstances, refused to interfere with the order of the High Court.

In the present case on hand, I have categorically held that the defendants 1 to 6 have no right or title whatsoever to sell 58.33% share of the suit schedule property. Hence, the said judgment cannot be of any use to the plaintiff herein.

(iii) ANAND PRASAD AGARWALLA VS. TARKESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS [2001 (5) SCC 568] This judgment arose out of an interim order. The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court should not hold a mini trial at the stage of passing interim orders. Thus, the said judgment would be of any use to the plaintiff.

53.For all the aforesaid reasons, the suit is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) payable by the plaintiff to the eighth defendant.

17 / 04 / 2013 List of witnesses for the Plaintiff PW1  S.V.Krishnan PW2  L.Uday Metha List of witnesses for the Defendants DW1  V.Subramanian List of exhibits for the Plaintiff

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No Exhibits Date Parties to the document Nature of document

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.	P.1		11.05.1973	Will executed by Sri.Venkatesa Sarma 
					and registered as Document 
					No.22 of 1973 in the SRO 
					Kanchipuram.				Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.	P.2		25.01.1974	Codicil executed by 
					Sri Venkatesa Sarma and registered 
					as Document No.2 of 1980 in the 
					SRO Kanchipuram.			Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.	P.3		12.03.1980	Order passed in O.S.No.3461 of 1972 
					on the file of V Assistant Judge 
					City Civil Court, Chennai.		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.	P.4		28.10.1981	Order passed in A.S.No.198 of 1981 
					on the file of II Additional Judge, 
					City Civil Court, Chennai		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.	P.5		03.05.1985	Order passed in O.P.No.531 of 1981 
					on the file of High Court, Madras	Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.	P.6		06.02.1991	Common Order Passed in 
					O.P.No.533 of 1986 and 
					O.P.No.388 of 1989 on the file of 
					High Court, Madras.			Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.	P.7		07.02.1992	Order passed in O.S.A.No.19 of 1992 
					on the file of High Court, Madras	Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.	P.8		30.04.1993	Order passed in S.A.No.809 of 1984 
					on the file of High Court, Madras	Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.	P.9		25.01.2006	Order passed in Memo filed by the 
					8th Defendant in E.P.No.2248 of 2001 
					on the file of X Assistant Judge 
					City Civil Court, Chennai.		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.	P.10		25.09.2006	Affidavit and petition and 
					docket order in EA.SR.No.37749/2006 
					in E.P.No.2248/2001			Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11	P.11		08.10.1987	Death Certificate of Late V.Seseela	Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.	P.12		30.04.1993	Copy of E.P.No.2248 of 2001 on the 
					file of X Assistant Judge 
					City Civil Court, Chennai		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.	P.13		30.04.1993	Copy of E.P.No.2250 of 2001 		Xerox 
					on the file of 				(for recovery 
					X Assistant City Civil Court, 		of damages)
					Chennai					
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.	P.14		23.12.2004	Final Order passed in 
					E.P.No.2248 of 2001 on the file of 
					X Assistant City Civil Court, 
					Chennai.				Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.	P.15		29.04.2005	Sale Deed Document No.1944 of 2005 
					SRO Kodambakkam, executed by 
					Defendants 1 to 5 in favour of 
					Plaintiff				Certified copy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.	P.16		22.11.2005	Order in E.A.No.2230 of 2005 in 	Xerox 
					E.P.No.2248 of 2001 on the file of 	Impleading as
					X Assistant Judge City Civil Court, 	decree 
					Chennai.				holders 
										3 to 6 
										(Tmt.Kausalya's 
										legal 
										representative)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.	P.17		09.11.2005	Order passed in E.A.No.4311 of 2004 
					in E.A.No.3288/2005
					(Restoration Petition dismissed) 
					on the file of X Assistant Judge, 
					City Civil Court, Chennai		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.	P18		06.01.2006	Copy of Transfer O.P.No.130 of 2006 
					on the file of Principal Judge, 
					City Civil Court, Chennai		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.	P19		02.07.1977	Xerox Copy of Trust Deed of Plaintff	Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20	P20		13.03.2006	Resolution of the Plaintiff		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.	P.21		02.11.1977	Trust deed executed by 
					Rajasthani Jain Samraj			Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22.	P.22		16.07.1984	House Tax Receipt issued by 
					Corporation of Madras (3 Nos) to 
					Rajalakshmi (Tenant)			Original 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23.	P.23		03.02.1987	Series of Property and Education Tax 
					Receipt issued by Corporation of 
					Madras from 1981 to 1987		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24.	P.24		1987-1991	Series of property tax demand Notice	Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.	P.25		05.08.1987	Payment Receipt issued by 
					Chennai Corporation for sum paid to 
					Canara bank				Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.	P.26		17.02.1989	Legal Notice issued by 
					Tmt.A.N.Rajalakshmi to the 
					Account Officer, Revenue Department	Original43
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.	P.27		22.03.1993	Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and 
					Sewerage Board Cut-off Notice		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28.	P.28		13.04.1998	Judgment in S.A.No.809/1984		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29.	P.29		13.04.1998	Decree in S.A.No.809/1984		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.	P.30		01.03.1999	Temporary Notice issued by 
					Revenue Department of 
					Chennai Corporation			Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31.	P.31		18.07.2001	Letter to Revenue Officer issued 
					by Sri.Vidhya Matriculation 
					Hr.Sec. School				original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32.	P.32		13.05.2005	Bailiff Report in E.P.No.2248/2001 
					in O.S.No.3461/1972			Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.	P.33		04.08.2005	Notice issued by CMDA (stop work)	Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34.	P.34		21.10.2005	Legal Scrutiny Report			Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35.	P.35		09.05.2006	Notice issued by Corporation		Original 
										(Stop 
										Work Notice)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36.	P.36		15.05.2006	Notice issued by Corporation		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37.	P.37		07.06.2006	Notice issued by Corporation		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38.	P.38		24.08.2006	Fine Report issued by 
					Metropolitan Magistrate Court		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39.	P.39		04.08.2006	Letter by Asst.Executive Engineer to 
					Dr.Metha Matriculation Hr.Sec.School 
					to Shift Camp Light Post		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40.	P.40		18.10.2006	Intimation Receipt to pay the 
					fine amount issued by 
					Corporation of Chennai			Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41.	P.41		01.11.2006	Letter from Asst. Executive Engineer 
					to Shri.Rajashthani Jain Samaj 
					regarding Planning permission		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42.	P.42		28.11.2006	Letter to Deputy Planner from 
					Dr.C.L.Metha Matriculation 
					Hr.Sec.School				Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43.	P.43		03.01.2007	Order in W.P.No.34944 of 2006		Xerox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44.	P.44		14.06.2007	Order in CRP No.1459/2006		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45.	P.45		04.07.2007	Order in EA No.3097/2007 in 
					EP No.2248/2001 in O.S.No.3461/1972	Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.	P.46		30.09.2010	Encumbrance Certificate with respect 
					to Doc.No.8623 from 
					01.01.1987 to 29.09.2010		Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47.	P.47		30.09.2010	Proforma for Property Tax Return	Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48.	P.48		30.09.2010	Demand Notice issued by 
					Madras Metropolitan 
					Water Supply Sewerage 			Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49.	P.49		30.09.2010	Photographs of the suit Property	Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.	P.50		30.09.2010	Sketch Plan				Original
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



List of Exhibits for the Defendants:-

1. Ex.D1- Letter dated 02.07.1983 from the District Collector, Madras regarding probate in O.P.No.531 of 1980 to Ramadevi.

2. Ex.D2- Notice dated 06.04.1984 under Section 59 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suit valuation Act, 1955.

3.Ex.D3 - Letter dated 31.08.1984 from Madras District Collector to the eighth defendant to pay Court fee.

4.Ex.D4 -  Release deed dated 24.02.1995

5. Ex.D5  Release deed dated 24.02.1995

6.Ex.D6  Release deed dated 05.05.1995

7.Ex.D7  Lay out plan approval dated 15.03.1996

8.Ex.D8  Settlement deed dated 19.06.1996

9.Ex.D9  Settlement deed dated 19.06.1996

10.Ex.D10  Settlement deed dated 19.06.1996

11.Ex.D11  Order dated 25.07.2006 in OSA Nos.139 to 141 of 2006

12.Ex.D12  Order dated 07.11.2006 in CRP No.831 of 2006

13.Ex.D13  Order dated 11.12.2006 in SLP against the order in CRP No.831 of 2006

14.Ex.D14  Order of the Executing Court dated 28.09.2007 in E.P.No.2248 /2001

15.Ex.D15  Mortgage deed dated 21.09.1995

16.Ex.D16- Order dated 07.02.1992 in OSA No.19/1992

17.Ex.D17  Consent affidavit dated 21.07.1980 of Tmt.Rajeswari in O.P.No.531/1980

18.Ex.D18  - Consent affidavit dated 21.07.1980 of Tmt.Kausalya in O.P.No.531/1980

19.Ex.D19  Consent affidavit dated 30.07.1980 of Tmt.Suseelammal in O.P.No.531/1980

20.Ex.D20  Consent affidavit dated 21.07.1980 of eighth defendant in O.P.No.531/1980

21.Ex.D21  Petition dated 22.07.1989 in O.P.No.399/1989

22.Ex.D22  Plaint dated September 2000 in C.S.No.719/2000

23.Ex.D23  Order dated 28.03.2002 in OSA No.76/2002

24.Ex.D24  Memorandum of Understanding between the plaintiff and judgment debtors in O.S.No.3461/1972










TK