M BASKAR Vs. M PARAMESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is a third party to the proceedings pending before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu and he filed the present appeal aggrieved over the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, in E.A.No.231 of 2010 in E.P.No.19 of 2009 in O.S.No.104 of 2007, directing the bailiff to remove the obstructor, the appellant herein, from the suit property, namely, 98 cents comprised in old Survey No.134/3 and new Survey No.134/69 of Perungalathur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, with a compound wall on all sides and trees.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal, are as follows: It is the case of the appellant that he purchased the suit property from one A.V.Padmanabhan, the grandson of A.Veeraraghava Iyengar, under a Sale Deed dated 19.07.2006 and from three other persons, who are also claiming ownership over the said property, under a Ratification Deed dated 08.02.2007. Thus, by virtue of the said sale deed and the ratification deed, the appellant is the owner of the said property and after purchase, he built a small house for watchman and a store room and planted about 50 coconut saplings and he also made improvements in the suit property, such as digging a bore well, obtaining power supply from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perungalathur,installing 1-1/2 horsepower motor and apart from that, he constructed a pucca compound wall, the thickness of which is 9 inches with the height of 7-1/2 feet, surrounding the property, to avoid any encroachment. THE servant quarters and the store room were assessed to house tax by the Perungalathur Town Panchayat and the door number was also allotted. Patta was also given in the name of the appellant in respect of the suit property.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that on appearance by the obstructor, on receipt of the notice under Form 40, all questions arising between the parties to the proceedings have to be adjudicated and have to be determined by the Court under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. Any order of adjudication arises out of Rule 101 will be treated as a decree, but the learned Principal District Judge, without following the procedures, ordered the removal of the obstructor directly, based on the endorsement made by the bailiff on 05.04.2010 with the connivance of respondents 1 to 4, which is patently illegal and is liable to be set aside.In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in the case of SILVERLINE FORUM PVT.LTD., .vs. RAJIV TRUST AND ANOTHER ((1998) 3 SCC 723), UMA NATH PANDEY .vs. STATE OF U.P. (2009 (2) CTC 663) and DALIP SINGH ..vs.. STATE OF U.P.).