Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3928
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VIMALA, J.
Sri Ahobila Mutt Jeear Srivan, Sadagopa Sri Narayan Yathendra Maha Desika Swamigal, Represented by their Power Agent, R. Krishnaswamy, Srirangam
Versus
Sethubava Chatram Haridranathi & Another
Second Appeal No. 176 of 2000
Decided On : 25-09-2012
For the Appellant:D. Rajagopal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, S.K. Rakhunathan, Advocate, R2, No Appearance.
The plaintiff must establish title to the suit property, and the defendant's denial must be specific and complete. Admissions and statutory documents play a crucial role in determining title.
Headnote:
patta - Property Title Dispute - Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 - Ex.A-2, Ex.A-4 - The court discussed the grant of patta, the relevance of documents Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-4, and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish title. The court also highlighted the principles of estoppel and the importance of complete and specific denial by the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a religious mutt, filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of two properties. The defendants disputed the plaintiff's title based on the grant of patta and the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had established title to the suit property based on the grant of patta and documents Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-4. The court also held that the defendants' defense was weak and lacked specific denial, leading to the plaintiff's entitlement to the declaration of title and possession.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of patta, the relevance of documents Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-4, the burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the adequacy of the defendants' denial of the plaintiff's title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the plaintiff's burden to establish title, the evidentiary value of admissions, and the requirement for specific and complete denial by the defendant. The court also highlighted the principles of estoppel and the relevance of statutory documents in establishing title.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, reversing the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.16 of 1999 and confirming the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
1. The second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, which is a religious mutt, represented by the power agent, challenging the reversal of the decreeing of the suit in A.S.No.16 of 1999.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit property consists of two items. Both the items are located within the municipal limits of Mannargudi Haridranathi North Bank, Ward No.1, Block No.37, and under the following Town Survey Numbers with corresponding extents:-
(i) T.S.No.2160/2 – 14551 sq.ft., and
(ii) T.S.No.2162 – 57000 sq.ft.,
3. According to the plaintiff, T.S.No.2160 was subjected to land acquisition proceedings and during that occasion, it got sub-divided into T.S.Nos.2160/1 and 2160/2 and later, the Government acquired the property comprised in T.S.No.2160/1 for which compensation was paid to the plaintiff. The remaining item i.e., in T.S.No.2160/2 is the first item of the suit property.
3.1 The property covered in T.S.No.2162, with patta No.232, consists of two tiled houses. Out of the total extent of two acres 42,654 sq.ft., only portion of the property, namely, 57,000 sq.ft., belongs to the plaintiff. Even though joint patta has been issued in the name of the plaintiff as well as Shri.V.Ratnam, Retd., Judge of the Madras High Court, in patta No.2322, covering the entire extent in T.S.No.2162, the plaintiff restricted the claim only to the extent of 57,000 sq.ft., while admitting that the rest belonged to Justice V.Ratnam, the former Judge of the Madras High Court.
3.2 According to the plaintiff, one Raja of Thanjavur, dedicated those properties to the plaintiff's mutt by way of title deed No.579. The settlement register bears the name of the plaintiff's mutt; even though the ownership is shown to be joint, but actually the enjoyment is separate; Justice V.Ratnam is enjoying the western portion and the Mutt is enjoying the eastern portion; eastern portion alone is shown as one of the suit item; the tax assessment stands in the name of the plaintiff's mutt.
3.3 During 1940, the first defendant came to the suit property for the purpose of running Vedapadasalai. Thus the defendant is in permissive occupation of the suit property.
After the first defendant occupying the property, the idol of “Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Perumal Swamy” was shifted to a place nearby Ahobilaswamy Mutt. As the two buildings in the second item of the property are classified as Chathiram, there is no tax assessment.
3.4. As the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff was sought to be prevented by the second defendant, the suit came to be filed.
4. The first defendant denied knowledge about the grant of patta in favour of the plaintiff under the proceedings of the Inam Commissioner. The specific case of the first defendant is that first defendant never occupied the property with the lease and license of the plaintiff. The Inam title deed relied on by the plaintiff will not confer any title to the plaintiff. By virtue of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, all pre-existing rights of any party relating to the minor Inam get extinguished and therefore, the title could be claimed only by virtue of the patta granted under the Act. But as against the grant of patta, the first defendant has filed the appeal, which is still said to be pending. The plaintiff cannot claim any title based on that patta also.
4.1. The two buildings existing in T.S.No.2162 bearing Door Nos.34 and 33 are known as 'Sethupatha Chathiram' and as such, as they are chowtries, they are exempted from the property tax by the Municipality. However, in the Municipal Tax Assessment Register, the name of the first defendant alone is shown as the owner of the property.
4.2. The second defendant is the auditor in the HR & CE Department. The property has been leased out to the third parties through him. Therefore the plaintiff's case must be dismissed.
5. The trial court relied upon the grant of patta by the
