Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court which set aside a decree for damages in favor of the appellant, M. Hariharasudhan, holding that the civil suit was not maintainable in view of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. The appellant, who runs a hotel in Madurai, had purchased a plot adjacent to his father's property and started construction in 2014. His father filed a suit for injunction against respondent No. 1, who was constructing in a manner that obstructed access. Despite a status quo order, respondent No. 1 completed construction and later, along with others, damaged the appellant's construction materials worth Rs. 2.27 lacs. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 damaged the hotel's glass showcase and automatic glass door, and respondents No. 2 and 3 trespassed and stole cash over Rs. 1 lac. The appellant also incurred medical expenses of Rs. 73,000 for injured employees. He filed O.S. No. 186 of 2016 for damages. The trial court decreed the suit awarding Rs. 18,28,941 with interest. The High Court, in appeal, set aside the decree solely on the ground that the suit was not maintainable, holding that the Act impliedly barred civil court jurisdiction because Sections 10 and 11 and Rule 4 provided a specific method for claiming compensation. The Supreme Court examined whether the Act ousts civil court jurisdiction by implication. Relying on Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court noted that ouster is not readily inferred and that Section 7(4) of the Act expressly contemplates a subsequent civil suit for compensation, indicating that the remedy under the Act is concurrent with civil remedies. Section 14 saves proceedings outside the Act. The Court held that the Act does not provide an adequate and sufficient remedy equivalent to a civil suit, and therefore the civil court's jurisdiction is not impliedly barred. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Ouster by Implication - The Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 does not expressly bar civil court jurisdiction; Section 7(4) contemplates a subsequent civil suit for compensation, indicating concurrent remedy - Held that civil court jurisdiction is not impliedly ousted as the Act does not provide an adequate and sufficient remedy equivalent to a civil suit (Paras 6-10). B) Statutory Interpretation - Saving Clause - Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 - Section 14 saves proceedings instituted outside the Act, reinforcing that civil remedies are not barred - Held that the saving clause supports maintainability of civil suit (Para 10). C) Precedent - Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1968 (3) SCR 662 - Principles for ouster of civil court jurisdiction - Ouster not readily inferred; must examine if statute provides adequate remedy for what civil court would normally do - Held that the Act does not provide such remedy, hence civil suit maintainable (Paras 6-6.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for damages filed by the Appellant is maintainable in light of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, i.e., whether the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court by necessary implication.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court dated 29.03.2019 in A.S. (M.D.) No. 143 of 2018 is set aside. The decree of the Trial Court dated 03.04.2018 in O.S. No. 186 of 2016 is restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction not ousted by implication unless statute provides adequate remedy
- Section 7(4) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act
- 1992 recognizes concurrent civil remedy
- Section 14 saves proceedings outside Act
- Principles from Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh applied
