Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4448
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Poochi Servai (died) & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Rajendaran & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.(MD)No.105 of 2007
Decided On : 03-12-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. A. Arumugam for M/s. Ajmal Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Jeya Prakash
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining - Claiming that defendants are attempting - plaintiff has no title or possession of suit property - Suit was resisted by the defendants contending that neither plaintiff nor his predecessor in interest have any title to suit property - According to defendants suit property originally belonged to who sold portions of it to and - It is further claimed that had sold an extent of 3 cents to one under a sale deed said had in turn conveyed the property purchased by him under sale deed second defendant in the suit – Held, A issued under Settlement Scheme cannot be equated to a Revenue lands are lands meant for habitation of villagers and prior to introduction of Settlement Scheme in there was no tax livable for lands land classified as never vested with the Government and the Government is not the paramount owner - It was the person in possession, who had the title to the property -With a view to regularize occupation of Nathan lands and to bring them under the tax-net Settlement Scheme was introduced and under Scheme were issued to various persons, who were found in possession of lands - Therefore issued under Settlement Scheme does have evidentiary value so as to establish title as against stranger - Therefore, both Courts below were no right in holding that A1 / does not confer any title on plaintiff – Hence second question of law is also answered in favor of plaintiff / appellant - In light of above discussion and the answers given to questions of law Court find that both Courts below had misread scope of Settlement and treated it as an Ordinary Revenue which should be accompanied by documents of title - This had lead to erroneous and perverse findings being recorded by Courts below – Therefore Court have no hesitation in setting aside judgment and decree by both Courts below second appeal will stand allowed suit in will stand decreed as prayed for - However there shall be no order as to costs - Once it is found that the defendants have no better title plaintiff in whose name the revenue records stands, particularly in respect of the properties covered by Settlement would be entitled to protect his possession - Courts below have rightly left question of title open - Court therefore find that the plaintiff has established his possession in respect of land as claimed by him under - For foregoing reasons first question of law is answered in favor of appellant and against the respondents – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram, dated 28.06.2006, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.38 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvadanai, dated 08.11.2004.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.38 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thiruvadanai is the appellant. The said suit was filed by him seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.
2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property measuring about 3 cents in Survey No.226/8B1 is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and was classified as Grama Natham. During the Natham Settlement Scheme, Patta was issued to the plaintiff and his brother Subbiah Servai in respect of 350 sq.m., of land in Survey No.226/8B. Subsequently, the said survey number was subdivided into two and Patta was issued to the plaintiff for an extent of 250 sq.m., in Survey No.226/8B1, for the remaining 100 sq.m., Patta was issued to the brother of the plaintiff. Claiming that the defendants are attempting to interfere with his possession, the plaintiff came forward to file the above suit.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor in interest have any title to the suit property. According to the defendants, the suit property originally belonged to Ponnu Iyengar, who sold portions of it to Balavesam and Sudalaimuthu. It is further claimed that Balavesam’s sons Kayambu and Manamuthu had sold an extent of 3 cents to one Ganesan, S/o. Subbiah Kone under a sale deed, dated 03.09.1996. The said Ganesan had in turn conveyed the property purchased by him under the sale deed, dated 03.09.1996, to Thavamani / the second defendant in the suit. The defendants would further claim that the first wife of the first defendant viz., Pappathi Ammal had purchased to an extent of 2 « cents from Ravichandran and others, who are the heirs of Sudalaimuthu. The defendants would also claim that subsequent to the purchase, mutation of the revenue records was effected and the Patta transfer order was passed on 27.06.2002, subdividing Survey No.226/8B into 226/ 8B1 measuring 250 sq.m., and 226/8B2 by measuring 100 sq.m. The Patta in respect of 226/8B2 was transferred in the name of Pappathi / wife of the first defendant. The Adangal Extract relating to the suit property viz., 226/8B2 measuring about 100 sq.m., standing in the name of the said Pappathi was also relied upon by the defendants to show that the plaintiff has no title or possession of the suit property.
4. At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one Kitta as P.W.2. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and D.Ws.2 to 6 were examined on his side. The plaintiff has produced Exs.A1 to A3 and defendants produced Exs.B1 to B26. A Commissioner was appointed pending suit and he also filed a report and plan which were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.
5. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues, concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction inasmuch as he has not established his title. The trial Court found that Ex.A1, Patta, will not confer title on the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has no right over the property and hence, he is not entitled to injunction. At the same time, the trial Court also found that the defendants have not established that the suit property originally belonged to Ponnu Iyangar, who had sold the same to Sudalaimuthu and Balavesam, from whose heirs the defendants claim to have purchased and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. The learned Subordinate Judge upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, agreed with the conclusions of the trial Court, had dismissed th
