2002 Supreme(Mad) 825

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
A.PL.Meyyappa Chettiar - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector & Others - Respondents
A.S.No.309 of 1995 and W.P.No.6579 of 1995 C.M.P.No.13465 of 1995 and W.M.P.No.10619 of 1995
Decided On : 23 August 2002

Payment of kist and records or the entry in the name of patta book are no documents of title and cannot be a substitute of documents of title.

Headnote:

JUDGEMENT :- P. SHANMUGAM, J. The appeal as well as the writ petition are taken together for consideration. The suit in O.S.No.38 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, was filed for declaration and permanent injunction by appellant in the appeal. The suit was dismissed with cost. The appeal is against this judgement and decree. He has also filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to set aside the order of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, dated 10.06.1994 confirming the order of the Sub Collector of Devakottai dated 30.1.1994 and consequently to direct the respondents therein to restore the name of the writ petitioner in the `A' register of the fourth respondent therein, namely, the Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, in respect of the land in S.No.27/5 measuring 1.07 acres, at Kottaiyur Village, Karaikudi Taluk.

Fact of the Case:

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit property in S.No.27/5 of Kottaiyur Village, K. Velangudi Group, Karaikudi Taluk, of an extent of 1.07 acres was purchased by the father of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 01.05.1929 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- from M/s. V.CT. Chockalingam Chettiar, VR. Chockalingam Chettiar, PR.P. Vairavan Chettiar, the trustees of Shree Kandeeswaramudaiyan Devasthanam, and ever since, they had been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying revenue and kist. Their names have been entered in the patta passbook and adangal. It is his further case that while the suit property was covered on three sides by a compound wall, they have grown trees, plants and have been enjoying and in possession of the land without hindrance from anybody. While so, when the plaintiff was out of India, an erroneous entry was made in the `A' Register of the Revenue Department in the name of one K. Govindan Chettiar in the place of the plaintiff. He came to know of this, when he went to pay the kist and immediately thereafter, he applied for removal of the name of K. Govindan Chettiar from the said register. The Tahsildar, considering his possession, right and title, found that erroneous entry has been made in the name of K.Govindan Chettiar and ordered restoration of the same to the petitioner's name as evidenced by Ex.A.4 (1971). Six years thereafter, the defendant along with his brother K. Ramanathan Chettiar conveyed 7 cents of land adjoining the suit property herein by a registered sale deed dated 27.07.1979, describing thereunder that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. However, after fourteen years, the defendant invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub Collector, Devakottai, for an appeal dated 01.09.1993 against the transfer of the entry in `A' Register in the petitioner's name made by the Tahsildar on 05.03.1971. The Sub Collector, by order dated 30.01.1994 restored the entry in the name of K. Govindan Chettiar. The said order was confirmed by the District Revenue Officer by Ex.B.1 order in the appeal filed by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant who is a highly influential man and has money and power, armed now with an illegal order, tried to unlawfully interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, thereby driving the plaintiff to institute the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He had also filed the Writ Petition No.6579 of 1995 against the order of the District Revenue Officer confirming the order of the Sub Collector and for the consequential restoration of the plaintiff's name in the register.

Finding of the Court:

The main question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff has established his title to the suit property, so as to seek the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, and whether the order of the revenue authorities are justifiable?.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff? 2. Whether the defendant is interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the suit is maintainable? 5. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff has established his title to the suit property by virtue of registered sale deeds Ex.A.1 dated 12.05.1929 and Ex.A.13 dated 27.07.1979. The defendant is estopped from questioning the title of the plaintiff to the suit property, inasmuch as in Ex.A.13, the defendant himself has described the suit property as plaintiff's property. The orders of the revenue authorities are illegal and unsustainable in law. The trial court erred in relying on the orders of the revenue authorities to decide the question of title. The plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for.

Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The suit is decreed as prayed for with costs. The Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for with costs.