Grant of Patta cannot be challenged.

Bellie, J.

1. The defendant Kannammal is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit relates to 1.35 acres of land in Amur Village (1.10 acres in S. No. 143/5 and Order 25 acres in S. No. 143/6 aggregating to 1.35 acres). The suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction. The suit land originally belonged to one Lakshmana Naidu. He executed a simple mortgage of the land in favour of one Chinna Munusamy on 12.6.1930. In discharge of that mortgage the mortgagor executed a sale deed in favour of the mortgagee's son by name Rajagopala Chetty on 1.5.1937. This Rajagopala Chetty is the father of the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 6. (Originally the suit was filed by the first plaintiff first son of Rajagopala Chetty and the second plaintiff the lessee of the land, but subsequently second son of Rajagopala Chetty, wife of Rajagopala Chetty and his two daughters were impleaded respectively as plaintiffs 3 to 6). It is the case of the plaintiffs that since the date of sale in favour of Rajagopala Chetty himself, and after his death his sons, wife and daughters i.e. the plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 6 were in possession and enjoyment of the land by leasing it to the second plaintiff. While so the defendant maneuvered to get patta for the land in the year 1961 during survey operations under the Madras Estates Abolition Act. The grant of patta for the land to the defendant does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs, but the defendant is interfering with their possession.

2. As against this the defendant would contend that Rajagopala Chetty was a Zamindar of the suit village (Amur). The defendant's husband Muruga Pillai had been working as an Accountant under Rajagopala Chetty and before that under his father Chinna Munuswamy Chetty for a number of years and for the meritorious services rendered by him as such Accountant Rajagopala Chetty wanted to gift the suit land to him and at the suggestion of Muruga Pillai it was gifted to his wife the defendant has orally in 1952, and since then the defendant has been in possession of the land. In 1954 she leased out the suit land to the second plaintiff. Amur village was taken over by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act, and after Rajagopala Chetty gave consent letter the defendant was granted a ryotwari patta for the land. When the defendant's' husband died she obtained a loan of Rs. 500 from the second plaintiff the lessee on the understanding that the loan amount should be adjusted from the future Kuthagai (rent) to be paid by the second plaintiff to the defendant for the land. When the second plaintiff insisted for repayment of the amount due under the promissory note he was told by the defendant that the entire amount had already been discharged by adjustment of three years Kuthagai. The second plaintiff declined to return the promissory note. The defendant wanted him to surrender possession of the land and he agreed. But when the defendant's men went to plough the land they were obstructed. The second plaintiff with the connivance of the first plaintiff with a view to deprive the defendant of the suit land has filed the suit fabricating documents. The defendant has absolute right to the suit land by virtue of the ryotwari patta issued to her and also by adverse possession. It is further contended that the plaintiffs by their conduct are estopped from disputing the title and possession of the defendant.

3. The learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur, who tried the suit held that the alleged gift by Rajagopala Chetty is not true and that the ryotwari patta issued to the defendant does not confer any right on the defendant and further held that the second plaintiff was a lessee under the plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 6 and not under the defendant and that the defendant has not prescribed any title by adverse possession. On these findings he decreed the suit as prayed for.

4. On appeal by the defendant the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal framed two points for consideration:

1. Whether the alleg