CASE ANALYSIS: THE CORPORATION OF MADRAS V. M. PARTHASARATHY AND
OTHERS[1] ON 10 AUGUST, 2018
|
Appellant(s)/ Defendant(s) |
The Corporation of Madras &Anr. |
|
Respondent(s)/ Plaintiff(s) |
M. Parthasarathy &Ors. |
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
·
Trial
Court, 1992
Four individuals, Munusamy, Manickam, Anandaraj,
and Parthasarathy filed four civil suits with the trial court separately as
plaintiffs against the Corporation of Madras, seeking a permanent injunction,
restraining the Corporation from interfering with their possession of the ‘suit
property’. The concerned property of which they claimed possession was located
in Block No. 15, Aminjikarai Village, Pulla Reddy Avenue, Madras-29.Each
plaintiff had purchased a ground of 1200 sq. ft. under sale deeds from its vendors,
Rajalakshmi and Janaki. The Corporation alleged that the properties in question
solely belonged to it. For the four complaints filed, one joint trial was
concluded. Common evidence was produced, which included sale deeds, Town Survey
Lands Registers, letters, and certificates. The Court contended that the
plaintiffs on failing to file the parent deeds were unsuccessful in
establishing their title over the suit properties by co-relating the pieces of
evidence. Hence, it was held (in 1993) that they had no title or possession
over the suit properties, and it belonged absolutely to the Corporation. The
case was thus, dismissed with costs.
· VIII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai, 1993
The plaintiffs filed another appeal under Order
41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., seeking to admit another evidence, i.e., the sale
deeds of the plaintiff’s vendors and a letter which was issued to the
Tahsildar, Egmore, to co-relate the properties. The lower Appellate Court
allowed the request to admit the civil miscellaneous petition for additional
evidence. Moreover, it granted a decree for permanent injunction in favour of
the plaintiffs. The request was followed as the Corporation showed no
objections to the request, neither did they produce records that proved their
claimed right in the suit properties.
· The High Court of Madras, 1997
Appellants’
Arguments
The aggrieved defendants filed a second appeal. The
Corporation contended that the land in question was once located adjacent to a
vegetable market. The vegetable vendors were tempted and had tried to encroach
upon that land, but were evicted and fences were laid by the Corporation. These
lands were then acquired under Shenoy Nagar Town Planning Scheme and handed
over to the Corporation. Despite this, the Tahsildar affected the transfer of
registry in favour of the plaintiff’s vendors and later on, the plaintiffs. The
Corporation had prayed to the collector to get the registry cancelled.
Thereafter, after proper inquiry, it was recognizedby the collector that the
transfer was wrong and the registry was cancelled. The title was established to
be in favour of the Corporation. Hence, the defendants had two documents to
prove their title, i.e., the Gazette Publication of 1950 and an Award of 1952.
Further, no injunction could be maintainable as no title was proved by the
plaintiffs and the suit for injunction itself was a suit for declaration of
title. It was also held that even if the patta was issued to the
plaintiffs, such document cannot be taken as a document of title, viz., a pattais
not conclusive on the title.
Respondents’
Arguments
Concurrently, the Plaintiffs also filed a writ
petition in 1993. Their Counsel contended that the concerned suit property was
one of the properties acquired to form a road by the Corporation of
Madras. They showed that there was no reference of the suit property in the
documents produced by the defendants, which meant that the property wasn’t
acquired and stood registered in the name of K. Rajalakshmi and K. Janaki in
the permanent Land Register. The
Collector too was earlier convinced that the properties belonged to the
plaintiffs, but later on, the Corporation influenced the collector by stating that
the patta was wrongfully issued, which was the main reason for its
cancellation. Yet even from the certificate of possession given by the
collector, it cannot be ascertained whether the suit properties were acquired
by the Corporation. Similarly, even the other two documents are not of much
help. In the Award as well as Plan, there is absolutely no indication
correlating the items to the present suit properties. Thus, according to the
respondents, the defendants failed to prove that they had acquired the
property. Another possibility that loomed large was that the parts of the land
of Corporation of Madras which were owned by private individuals were
inadvertently clubbed in the new Town survey operations with the Corporation’s
property as per the old survey.
Judgement
The court finally dismissed the appeal, and allowed
the writ petition and issued the title for grant of injunction. Thus, the decree
passed by the first Appellate Court was reaffirmed.
· The Supreme Court of India, 2018
The defendants again filed a special leave Petition
with the Apex Court against the order of the High Court.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
i.
Whether the first Appellate Court erred by failing to provide the
Corporation with a chance to file rebuttal evidence to refute the appellants'
new evidence?
RULE
Once new evidence is authorised at the appeal
level, the opposing party must be given the opportunity to provide rebuttal
evidence in order to refute the additional evidence.
So, by rule of law, appellate courts have two
options:
i.
Remanding the entire case for retrial under Or. 41 R. 23-A,
or
ii.
Making a limited remand under Or. 41 R. 25 by keeping
the main appeal with itself so that parties can lead evidence on specific
issues in light of new evidence, and then deciding the main appeal on the
merits.[2]
The first Appellate Court committed a jurisdictional
mistake by failing to notice both of the above-mentioned provisions.
JUDGMENT
The court decided that the Appeal Court's decision
could not be upheld since the first appellate court prevented the opposing
party (the Corporation) from presenting rebuttal evidence to the plaintiffs'
new evidence. As a result, the court ordered the Trial Court to rehear the
matter without regard to earlier decisions.
ANALYSIS
The case deals with a land dispute relating to a “suit
land” of around 3600 sq. ft.. The plaintiffs, who alleged possession of the
concerned property, approached the court for permanent injunction against
interference by the Corporation in their possession of land.Uncertainties
developed when neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants could clearly prove
their title and possession. While the Plaintiffs alleged mistake in Government
Town Survey numbers after the land was registered by the Tahsildar in their
name, the defendants played their narrative that the registry was cancelled by
the Collector. Keeping in view all the arguments, the plaintiffs were afforded
a better position and were favored in both the appeals. However, the main
contention that led the Court to direct a re-trial was that the other party was
given insufficient opportunity to admit rebuttal evidence.
It is an important case as land disputes between
governmental Corporations and private individuals are common and go on for
ages. This is a typical case of how intricately intertwined and tangled a claim
to title can be. As per my view, a fresh trial is justified as it would provide
both the parties a fair chance to prove their title with clarity, provided that
justice is not delayed beyond a
reasonable time, since more than 26 years have lapsed in the quest.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, in this case, all the previous judgements
by Trial Court, Appellate Courts and High Court were reduced to dust. A fresh
case was directed to be instituted in order to establish a clear claim over
possession and title over the suit property and allow both the parties a fair
chance to produce evidence.
PRECEDENTS
1.
Land Acquisition
Officer, City vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976.
2.
Akhilesh Singh @
Akhileshwar vs Lal Babu Singh on 21 February, 2018.
3.
Shalimar
Chemicals Works Ltd vs Surendra Oil & Dal on 27 August, 2010.
[1](2018) 9 SCC 445
[2]2018 SCC
Vol. 9 November 7, 2018 Part 3, available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/11/10/2018-scc-vol-9-november-7-2018-part-3/ (last
visited on March 9, 2022).
0 Comments