The court ruled that property reserved for public purpose is deemed released from such reservation if not acquired within three years, allowing the original owner to transfer ownership.

ORDER :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal arises from the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in S.A. No.794 of 2019, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed setting aside Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2019 passed in A.S. No.71 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai (hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate Court”) and confirming Judgment and Decree, dated 13.09.2017, passed in O.S. No.265 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit”) on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”).

A FACTUAL APPRECIATION:

3. For the creation of Nachimuthu Nagar, plots were formed in T.S. No.1000/1, & 2, 1002, 1003/1 & 2, 1004 of Thirumanjanaveethi, Koorainadu, Mayiladuthurai Town by one Nachimuthu Mudaliar. This was approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Town Planning, Thanjai, Trichy and the Municipal Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai. The layout was approved in 1978 and later revised in 1981. In the Layout, a portion was earmarked for public purpose for the welfare of the residents of Nachimuthu Nagar. That earmarked site is the suit land/property admeasuring 11200 square feet.

4. It is the case of the appellants that Nachimuthu Mudaliar died on 29.04.2004 and the suit property was sold by his legal heirs through a Sale Deed on 20.04.2009 to the Appellants No.6-10. Thereafter, vide an Exchange Deed dated 27.03.2013, Appellants no.4 & 5 (parents of Appellant no.1) were put in possession of a total area of 6145 square feet of the suit property. On the same day, through a Sale Deed, the Appellants no.2 & 3 (brother and father-in-law of the Appellant no.1, respectively) purchased the remaining 5055 square feet in the suit property. The cause of action is said to have arisen in October 2013, when Appellant no.1 made clear his intention of constructing a building on the suit property.

5. Respondents no.1 and 2 are the office-bearers of Nachimuthu Nagar Resident Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”), which is registered with the District Registrar, Mayiladuthurai. They are the original plaintiffs in the suit, which was originally filed against Appellant No.1 (later on, Appellants no.2-10 were impleaded[¹ [Appellant nos.2-5 were impleaded vide Order of the Trial Court dated 21.02.2014. Appellant nos.6-10 were impleaded vide Order of the Trial Court dated 17.12.2014.]] in the suit). The suit sought the grant of “relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, from in any manner, encroaching upon the suit property and put up any construction or disturbing in any manner.” (sic).

6. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, noted that permission should have been obtained from the Joint Director for changing the public purpose site and to sell the same, in the manner in which approval was obtained for Nachimuthu Nagar layout. In the absence of such permission, the legal heirs of Nachimuthu Mudaliar did not have a right to change the character of the suit property. Further, it was noted that the Family Partition Deed dated 31.07.1980, on the basis of which Sale Deed dated 20.04.2009 was created, was not produced before the court. The Trial Court opined, hence, that the Sale Deed 20.04.2009 was not legally proved. Consequently, the subsequent Sale Deed and Exchange Deed (mentioned supra) made in favour of the appellants was also held not to have been proved. On this basis, the Trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction against the appellants, as was sought.

7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal viz. A.S. No.71 of 2017 before the First Appellate Court. On consideration of the iss