High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
Krishnaswamy Gounder (Deceased) & Others
Versus
Muthusamy
Second Appeal No.1258 of 1995
Decided On : 16-11-2009
ownership - dispute over possession of suit properties - Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming ownership and continuous possession of the suit properties. The defendant disputed the claim, asserting possession as a tenant and invoking the principle of res judicata.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they had established continuous possession and ownership. The first appellate court reversed the decision, relying on the judgment and decree from a previous suit. The second appeal set aside the first appellate court's decision and restored the trial court's judgment.
Issues: Dispute over ownership and possession, applicability of res judicata, and lawful possession at the time of the present suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the defendant failed to prove lawful possession as a tenant at the time of the present suit, and the principle of res judicata did not apply due to differences in parties and causes of action.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, setting aside the first appellate court's decision and restoring the trial court's judgment.
This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 29. 1994, made in A.S.No.18 of 1992, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 22. 1992, made in O.S.No.60 of 1985, on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur.
2. The plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.60 of 1985 are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. The suit had been filed praying for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant and others from, in any way, interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs had stated that the suit properties were, originally, inam lands before they were converted into ryotwari lands and before the Government had carried out the statutory regularisation of the same. The Government had granted ryotwari patta for the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs, as well as to Palaniyammal and Muthammal in the year, 1966, when the suit lands were converted into ryotwari lands. The grantees, namely, Palaniyammal and Muthammal had died, leaving behind the fifth plaintiff, as their sole legal heir.
.3. The ryotwari patta had been granted on the ground of long enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs’ forefathers and by the plaintiffs, continuously, by paying the kist to the Government. The plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than forty years. The plaintiffs had further stated that their names had been entered in the village accounts, including the chitta and the adangal. The revenue patta number, in respect of the lands in question, had been entered in the chitta, as 515/32. The adangal and the chitta extracts and the kist receipts produced by the plaintiffs would show that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
4. While so, due to enmity, the defendant, along with certain others, who had no right or title or interest in the suit properties, had tried to obstruct the plaintiffs, on 21. 1985, from entering the suit properties and they had also tried to cut the trees therein. The plaintiffs with the help of certain well-wishers had managed to restrain the defendant and his men from committing the unlawful activities. However, the plaintiffs are apprehending that the defendant would disturb the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.60 of 1985, praying for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant and certain others.
.5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant it had been stated that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is false, frivolous and unsustainable, both in law and on facts. The defendant had stated that the suit properties were, originally, inam lands before they were converted into ryotwari lands and before the Government had carried out the statutory regularisation of the same. The defendant had further stated that even before such conversion and regularisation had taken place, the defendants father Patte Gounder was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, as a lessee. The ryotwari patta had been granted to the plaintiffs and it has been specifically mentioned in the said order that patte gounder, the father of the defendant, is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, as a tenant. Since Patte gounder, the father of the defendant is very old, the defendant has been assisting and helping him in cultivating in the suit properties, as a tenant. Since Patte Gounder is in actual possession of the suit properties, as a lessee, it is false to state that the plaintiffs are in possession of the properties. The kist had been paid by Patte Gounder and the defendant. Whereas the plaintiffs had not paid the kist. The defendant’s father had also filed a suit, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur, in O.S.N
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.