K SARASWATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Because of the interconnectivity of the matter, the common judgment is rendered. The plaint in O.S. No. 2844 of 2004, filed by the appellant herein, contains the following averments:

(2.) In the written statement filed in O.S. No. 2844 of 2004 by the second defendant/Corporation Commissioner, it is alleged as under:

(3.) The following are the averments contained in the written statement filed by the 3rd and 4th defendants in O. S. No. 2844 of 2004: 3(a) The suit is false, frivolous and unsustainable in law and on facts. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of all the allegations contained in the plaint except those that are admitted herein. The suit was not filed within the time stipulated by the High Court, Chennai. High Court has directed the plaintiff in the writ petition that she should file a suit within 4.9.2003 and seek necessary relief. But, the plaint shows the suit was filed only on 12.11.2003. Hence, the suit ought not have been entertained by the Court and the same should be rejected with costs. The plaintiff is now perfectly aware that this suit vacant site forms part of larger extent of area owned by late Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy and after his death, his legal representatives were in possession of the entire area till it was purchased by these defendants. Nobody else has got any interest, right or title to the suit property. It is not correct to state that the vacant site measuring 2419 sq.ft. with a superstructure was purchased by one Sethumadhavan from one Sadulla Bhasha and Others in 1983 and the said Sethumadhavan was in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaint is silent about how or from whom Sadullah Bhasha got the same. It is evident that the said Sadullah Bhasha had no manner or right whatsoever in the suit property who sold the same by taking advantage of the fact that the real owners of the property were residing in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. He posed himself as owner of the suit property and sold the same to one Sethumadhavan from whom the plaintiff is alleged to have purchased. On the basis of the fictitious sale deed, the present plaintiff got a patta in her name and subsequently got a building plan sanctioned by the 2nd defendant and put up a structure on the suit site. 3(b) The sons of the said late Denduluri Vydyanatha Krishnamurthy on coming to know the fraud played upon by the said Sadullah Basha, Sethumadhavan and the plaintiff, presented a petition to the first defendant (Collector of Chennai) who enquired into the same and found that they had trespassed into the suit land and created fictitious sale deeds and on the strength of those deeds, maneuvered to get patta and so the patta granted in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled. The same was brought to the notice of 2nd respondent, who on verification found that the above said persons have committed fraud and manoeuvered (sic) to get a building plan sanctioned and so revoked the sanctioned plan and directed the plaintiff to demolish the unauthorised construction put up on the suit site. 3(c) Show cause notice was sent by 2nd defendant to the plaintiff on 13.11.2002 and the plaintiff submitted her explanation to the show cause notice. The 2nd respondent found that the explanation given by her was not satisfactory and so the building plan and license was revoked. Hence, it is not correct to state that the order of the revocation is illegal, arbitrary, bereft of lawful authority and amounts to colourable exercise of powers. 3(d) The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 4842 of 1999 in the City Civil Court against the 2nd defendant and its Asst. Engineer, for a declaration that the notices sent by these defendants are illegal, null and void and consequential injunction restraining these defendants from demolishing superstructure. As these defendants have become the owners of the entire property by virtue of sale deeds executed by the legal representatives of deceased Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy on 14.2.1996, they filed a petition to get themselves impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 in the above suit. Immediately, the said suit was not pressed and the same was dismissed as not pressed. Then the plaintiff filed W.P. No. 2369 of 2001 to quash the order of the second defendant dated 29.12.2000. However, the petition was dismissed with a direction to the plaintiff to establish her title and work out her remedy in a Civil Court by filing a suit on or before 4.9.2003. As aforestated, the above suit was not filed within the stipulated period and so the suit is not maintainable. 3(e) The allegation that the plaintiff and the vendors had been in open, uninterrupted and continuous possession of the suit land with superstructure is false, because the owners though absentee-landlords, residing in Andhra Pradesh, have been paying Urban Land Tax till date. After cancellation of pattas by the first defendant, all the revenue records were restored in the name of the original owner by the Tahsildar, Purasawalkam-Perambur, Chennai-11 and the subsequent purchasers were trespassers and have no right whatsoever in the suit property. It is not correct to state that the defendants 3 and 4 have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest. It is equally false to allege that even the person who claimed to the original owner had not been in possession of the land in question for over the statutory period and the title of the said person got extinguished by lapse of time. Not only the original owners have been paying the Urban Land Tax but also got the patta in their names. It is therefore futile to contend that the original owners had not been in possession for over the statutory period. It is not open to the plaintiff to raise the question of adverse possession when she seeks declaration on the basis of the sale deed in her favour. 3(f) The plaintiff has miserably failed to establish how her predecessors especially Sadullah Bhasha got title to such a vast property or even to the suit property and from whom he had purchased or how his vendor acquired the suit property. The said Sadullah Bhasha is a rank trespasser and he had created fictitious documents to cheat the purchasers and subsequently committed a fraud on the Revenue officers and maneuvered to get patta on 28.1.1988. The plaintiff and her vendors have played fraud on the strength of fictitious- sale deeds and managed to get patta not only in the name of the plaintiff but also the neighbours. When the L.Rs of the Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy came to know about the patta granted in the name of the plaintiff and other three individuals he filed a petition before the 1st defendant, who on enquiry, close scrutiny and examination of the documents produced by both the parties, was satisfied with the title of the late Deduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy and that the fictititous sale deeds have no connection what- soever with the title of the late Deduluri Vydyanatha Krishnamurthy. 3(g) The suit land and the adjacent areas were all vacant sites and the plaintiff and her predecessors have trespassed into a portion and created fictitious sale deeds and cheated the defendants 3 and 4. Being the vacant site, the late Denduluri Vaidyanatha Krishnamurthy had been paying only the ULT and a vacant site is said to be in constructive possession and he later became permanent resident of Kakinada, A.P. His ownership is fortified by registered sale deed and therefore it is not correct to state that the claim of the defendants 3 and 4 who purchased the same from the rightful owner is not maintainable. The plaintiff who traces her title to the suit property has not stated how Sadulla Bhasha acquired title to the suit property. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed with costs.