Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4249
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Krishnan (Deceased) & Others
Versus
Alaghudurai & Others
S.A. No. 726 of 2003
Decided On :Decided On : 28-09-2010
For the Petitioners:V. Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C. Vediappan, R. Vasudevan, Advocates, Ms. Bhavani Subburayan SGP.
Headnote:
alienation - Property Dispute - [Assignment: AD. 1264 of 1337, Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, Sections 4 and 5] - The court discussed the validity of the alienation of granted lands, the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and the nature of right held by a transferee. The court highlighted that the violation of the terms of grant gives rise to action under the Act and emphasized the authority of the grantor to challenge the alienation. The court also noted the discretionary nature of relief under the Specific Relief Act and the importance of disclosing material facts in pleadings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over a property, claiming it was orally partitioned to his father and was in their possession. The defendants contested, claiming the property was sold to them and they were in possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alienation of the property in contravention of the terms of the grant was voidable, not void, and only the Government had the authority to challenge the alienation. The court emphasized the importance of disclosing material facts in pleadings and the discretionary nature of relief under the Specific Relief Act.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the alienation, the nature of right held by a transferee, and the authority of the grantor to challenge the alienation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the violation of the terms of grant gives rise to action under the Act and emphasized the authority of the grantor to challenge the alienation. The court also noted the discretionary nature of relief under the Specific Relief Act and the importance of disclosing material facts in pleadings.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the Courts below were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.
The 1st respondent herein/plaintiff (family Manager) has filed the suit in O.S. No. 454 of 1992 before the District Munsif Court Ariyalur for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff‘s family is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff‘s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs.
2. Thecase of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:
a. Thesuit property and the other properties originally belonged to one Palanimuthu, the father of the plaintiff herein and one Nasappan and the said properties were orally divided by Palanimuthu and Nasappan. In the said oral partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff. Since then, the said Palanimuthu was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same openly and continuously for more than the statutory period and thereby prescribed title. The patta book stands in the name of Palanimuthu. The said Palanimuthu died 10 years back. After his demise, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for himself and on behalf of his family members. The plaintiff has paid the kist for the suit property and the adangal extract of the suit property also stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff.
b. The defendants have no right title or interest in the suit property. Without any right, the defendants were colluding together and attempting to interfere with the plaintiff‘s possession and enjoyment of the suit property from 22.12.1988 and the same was prevented by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit has been filed.
3. In the Written Statement filed by the 1st defendant, adopted by the other defendants, it is averred as follows:
a. The suit property does not belong to the father of the plaintiff and one Nasappan. The averments with regard to the oral partition and their possession and enjoyment for more than the statutory period as alleged by the plaintiff are also false. It is also incorrect to state that after the demise of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for himself and on behalf of his family members. The kist receipt end the adangal extract filed by the plaintiff does not relate to the suit property. The allegation with regard to the trespass by the defendants on 22.12.1988 is also false.
b. The plaintiff was; never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The father of the plaintiff on 12.8.1959 sold his ancestral properties comprised in R.S. No. 409/1 to an extent of 3.44 acres along with the trees therein for a consideration of ` 200/- to one Marudhai Gounder, son of Perumal Gounder and also handed over possession of the same on that day itself. Since then, the said Marudhai Gounder has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till 31.7.1988. On 1.8.1988, the defendants 2 to 4, who are the sons of Marudhai Gounder, sold 3.20 acres out of 3.44 acres to the 1st defendant for consideration of ` 10,000/-and since then, the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same openly, continuously and uninterruptedly. The plaintiff and his father have no right, title or interest in the said properties. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property before and after filing of the suit and the defendants 2 to 4 are not necessary parties and in such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Before the Trial Court on the side of the plaintiff, Exhibits A-1 to A-17 were marked and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Chellamuthu as P.W.2. On behalf of the defendants, Exhibits B-1 to B-28 were marked and the defendants 1 and 4 were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and one Pichaipillai as D.W.3.
5. On consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal filed as against the same filed by the defendant
