J SIVAKAMI Vs. R XAVIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals are focussed animadverting upon the judgements and decrees dated 31.10.2008 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.Nos.130 and 131 of 2008 confirming the judgments and decrees dated 19.11.2007 passed by the 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.Nos.2955 of 2004, which was the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant in S.A.No.1705 of 2008 and 3rd appellant in S.A.No.1706 of 2008 and O.S.6495 of 2005, which was the suit for eviction and obtaining delivery of possession of the suit property, by the respondent in both these second appeals.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these second appeals would run thus: (i) Sivagami-the sold appellant in S.A.No.1705 of 2008 and 3rd appellant in S.A.No.1706 of 2008 happened to be the plaintiff in O.S.No.2955 of 2004, which was one for seeking injunction, so as to restrain the respondent-Xavier-the respondent in both the second appeals, from evicting her. (ii) Xavier-the respondent in both the second appeals herein filed the suit O.S.No.6495 of 2005 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking eviction and for obtaining delivery of possession of the suit property, which is found described in the schedules appended to in both the plaints concerning the aforesaid two suits. In other words the suit property is common in both the suits. (iii) Xavier/the plaintiff in O.S.No.6495 of 2005 would contend that earlier the entire property referred to in the schedule of the plaint was allotted to his father-Joseph Raja by the Slum Clearance Board. After his death, the property devolved upon him and his sister-Prema. While so, the said Prema, on receipt of a sum of Rs.25,000/- from Xavier, issued 'no objection certificate' for issuing Sale Deed in favour of Xavier, by the Slum Clearance Board. (iv) Whereupon, Xavier also paid the entire sale consideration in favour of the Slum Clearance Board and obtained the sale deed dated 22.9.2000 from the Slum Clearance Board. (v) Sivagami-the appellant in S.A.No.1705 of 2008 (plaintiff in O.S.No.2955 of 2004) along with others, namely, Jeyaraman, Tmt.Meena, Tmt.Lalli and Dinakaran, who are also appellants in S.A.No.1706 of 2008, happened to be residing in a portion in the property referred to in the plaint and it appears, bad blood started running in the relationship of the said Xavier on the one side and the appellants herein on the other side and as such, Xavier revoked the permission to occupy given to them and sought for eviction. (vi) Inasmuch as there was non-compliance on the part of the appellants therein, the aforesaid two suits emerged, one at the instance of Sivagami for injunction and another at the instance of Xavier for obtaining delivery of possession of the suit property. Both the suits were resisted by the respective defendants. (vii) Whereupon issues were framed and a joint trial was conducted. On the side of Sivagami, she examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A5. On Xavier's side, he examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and marked Exs.B.1 to B11. (viii) Ultimately, the trial Court by a common judgment dismissed the injunction suit (O.S.No.2955 of 2004) filed by Sivagami and decreed the suit (O.S.No.6495 of 2005) filed by Xavier. (ix) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the common judgment and decrees rendered by the trial Court, two appeals were filed before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the common judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(3.) BY way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguements as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellants in the second appeals, the learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals would advance his arguements, the gist and kernal of them would run thus: (i) The Slum Clearance Board issued the sale Deed Ex.B.8 dated 22.9.2000 in favour of Xavier, even during the life time of Xavier's sister-Prema, who happened to be the mother of Sivagami. (ii) The impleadment of the statutory authority, namely, the Slum Clearance Board, in these proceedings does not arise at all for the reason that the Sale Deed was already executed by the statutory authority and only in respect of a portion of the area covered by the Sale Deed, eviction was sought for and in such a case, there is no illegality or infirmity in the suit filed by Xavier. (iii) There is no substantial question of law involved in these appeals. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for the dismissal of both the appeals.