The Court emphasized the application of the Defence of India Rules, 1943, Leasehold (Abolition and Conversion to Ryotwari) Act, 27 of 1963, and the Limitation Act in determining the rights of the parties in the property dispute.

1. Following are the allegations averred in the amended Plaint:

1(a). The grand father of Plaintiffs by name Ramasamy Naidu and Mannar Naidu were brothers. The father of the Plaintiffs-Kanniah Naidu and Ramanjulu Naidu were brothers. The suit property is their ancestral property. It is 5.09 acres of land comprised in Survey No.18/2 in Muthapudupet Village. The suit property along with the adjoining properties were required by the defence department and temporarily the lands were taken away by the said department. Even at the time of requisition, the Government authorities recognised the Plaintiffs’ paternal uncle Ramanujulu Naidu and Nathamuni Naidu Naidu (son of Mannar Naidu) as owners and pattadhars of the suit property. After 1963, the lands were re-delivered to the family by the defence department. The suit property is the joint family property and as such the Plaintiffs branch is entitled to half share in respect of the suit property. The land was kept for some time and as the Plaintiffs were away from the suit village, they could not attend the affairs of the said property. Kanniah Naidu, father of Plaintiffs 2 to 4 approached 1st Defendant in the year 1985 about Ayudha Pooja day to effect a partition of the suit property or to sell away the entire property and to deliver half of the sale proceeds to the Plaintiffs.

1(b). It was at that stage Kanniah Naidu came to know that the patta was already granted to the 1st Defendant, who began to claim title in himself and refused to allot share belonging to the Plaintiffs branch. The Plaintiffs’ father initiated proceedings before the Tribunal at Chengalpattu Settlement Authority (Sub-Court, Chengalpattu) for cancellation of Patta granted in favour of 1st Defendant and since there was a delay in filing the Appeal, the same was filed with an Application to excuse the delay. Presently, the Plaintiffs file a Suit for passing of the preliminary decree, allotting them half share in the suit property and also for mesne profits.

2. In the Written Statement filed by the First Defendant, the following contentions have been raised:

2(a). The Suit is not maintainable. The First Defendant vehemently denies the origin and nature of the suit property as alleged in the Plaint. The village was requisitioned by the Defence Department and the owners were paid recurring compensation. The First Defendant’s father Nathamuni Naidu was alone in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owner and was receiving recurring compensation from the authorities exclusively and none else was entitled to the suit property. At no point of time, the Plaintiffs’ father or the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land nor their ancestors were recognised as owners by the Government authorities. Ramanujulu Naidu did not enjoy the property in S. No.18/2 viz., the suit property at any point of time as owner or pattadar. This Defendant’s father Nathamuni Naidu alone was recognised as owner of the suit land, who was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same and after his death in 1967 the First Defendant is an exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property exclusively till date by paying kist regularly and also by cultivating the same.

2(b). The suit village is a leasehold village and as per Leasehold (Abolition and Conversion to Ryotwari) Act, 27 of 1963, the Government conducted suo motu enquiry in 1968 after issuing notice to all the persons in possession and enjoyment of their properties, as such the notice was received by this First Defendant. Parthasarathy Naidu or Kanniah Naidu, the fathers of the first Plaintiff and Plaintiffs 2 to 4 respectively, did not make any claim at the time of enquiry for the suit land.

2(c). Ryotwari Patta was granted to the respective owners in the suit village, as per the order dated 3. 1969, by the settlement officer and accordingly, exclusive patta No.177 was issued in the name of first Defendant and his mother Kamalammal and the First D