A.S. No. 86 of 2006. Case: Ranjene Venkatraman Vs The District Collector, Thanjavur Collectorate and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberA.S. No. 86 of 2006
CounselFor Appellant: S. Natesh Raja, Adv. and For Respondents: R. Velmurugan, Government Advocate
JudgesC.V. Karthikeyan, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 9; Constitution of India - Article 21
Judgement DateMarch 22, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)


C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

  1. Appeal Suit filed against the Judgement and Decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Tanjore in O.S. No. 66 of 2004, dated 20.10.2005.

  2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff had filed original suit, originally before the Sub Court at Kumbakonam, in the year 1996 and subsequently, transferred in view of increase in pecuniary Jurisdiction to the Court of the Principal District Judge at Tanjore and re-numbered as O.S. No. 66 of 2004. The said suit was filed seeking a Judgement and Decree against the defendants for permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and for damages for a sum of Rs. 5,80,000/- together with interest and costs.

  3. The Plaintiff is a Medical Practitioner and along with her husband, who is also a Medical Practitioner had been running a nursing home by name Ramakrishna Nursing Home at Number 27, 27/A and 28 Mothilal Street, Kumbakonam in T.S. Number 997 and T.S. No. 1021/2. She claimed that the building had been constructed according to the plan sanctioned by the 6th defendant, the Municipality, Kumbakonam. The Nursing Home has been running from the year 1999 and consists of a consulting room, labour ward, scanning room, intensive care unit, dispensary and consultation rooms in the ground floor and 14 rooms with patients bed and operation theater in the first floor and a residential portion in the second floor. It had been stated that nearly 100 out-patients and 10 in-patients attend the Hospital every day.

  4. It had been further stated that the plaintiff purchased the land in T.S. No. 997, by registered sale deed dated 24.06.1987. According to the document, the measurement of the land in T.S. No. 997 was to a length of 198 feet North to South and 33 feet East to West on both sides.

  5. The plaintiff had also entered into a lease deed with respect to the Southern portion of the said land in T.S. No. 1021/2 part, by a lease deed she had constructed building in the said land also. This land in T.S. No. 1021/2 is Triangular in shape. Adjacent to T.S. Number 1021/2 is T.S. No. 1022 which is a water Channel. It is the case of the plaintiff that there were disputes between her and 6th defendant, Municipality. On 17.7.1996, the defendants trespassed in to the southern portion of the plaintiff's Nursing home and started to demolish the existing building. They used bulldozers. They broke down the pillars. This resulted in huge cracks all over the building on the Southern side. This caused much damage to the building. It also caused mental agony and hardship not only the plaintiff and her husband, but also to the patients in the hospital and other staff of the Nursing Home. This also became noticed by the general public, thereby inviting adverse comments. Immediately, the power of attorney of the plaintiff rushed to the Madras High Court on 18.7.1996 filed W.P. No. 10230 of 1996 and obtained an order of interim stay in W.M.P. No. 13510 of 1996. A bridge constructed over the water channel in T.S. No. 1022 was also demolished. The plaintiff claimed that her building and more particularly the demolished portions were within the patta area and did not encroach over the Government land. She further claimed that owing to the demolition, a scan machine was also completely damaged. She estimated the cost of damages to the building at Rs. 3.25 Lakhs; her compensation for mental agony and loss of reputation at Rs. 75,000/-, and the damage to the scan machine at Rs. 1.75 Lakhs. She filed this suit claiming compensation of Rs. 5.80 lakhs together with interest and costs. She also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession of T.S. No. 997 and T.S. No. 1021/2 part.

  6. In the written statement filed by the third defendant and adopted by the other defendants all the facts and claims of the plaintiff were disputed. According the defendants, the plaintiff had encroached and extended her Nursing Home building over...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT