Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
Killiyoor Town Panchayat – Appellant
Versus
Thangavadivu and Others – Respondents
S.A. (MD) No. 90 of 2016
Decided On : 01-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M. Murugan.
For the Respondents: N.S. Karthikeyan, M. Gnanagurunathan, P. Velmurugan.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 80 - Order 41 - Rule 27 - limitation Act - Peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property - Order of Revenue Department – Purpose of construct a library building in suit property - Whether Courts below followed settled principle law that it is for plaintiff in suit to prove title over schedule property with supportive valid documents - Husband of first respondent and father of second respondent as plaintiff filed suit in O.S. for declaration of his title and possession in respect of plaint B schedule property barring southern approximate cents and for consequential injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit B schedule property - Suit B schedule property is described as a property measuring an extent equivalent to cents in old Survey corresponding to Re-Survey - Suit is also for recovery of possession in respect of suit C schedule - Case of plaintiff is that property comprised in old Survey of Village having an extent and an extent of cents in Survey in same village originally belonged - It is also case of plaintiff that properties comprised in these two survey numbers lies as a single block with well defined boundaries on all four sides - It is stated by plaintiff that son and plaintiff orally partitioned suit property and that as per said oral partition plaintiff got eastern one half of plaint A schedule property and remaining portion was allotted to other son – Held, question of title has to be decided on basis of documents adduced on either side - When plaintiff has produced partition deed and revenue documents which are very old no piece of evidence is let in by defendants on their side - Though the defendants stated that property has been classified as a Government land no settlement register or revenue record is produced by defendants - It is pertinent to mention that State represented by District Collector is first defendant in suit - Union is third defendant in suit and it is from first defendant fourth defendant appellant stated to have derived title in respect of the suit property - It has been settled in several judgments of this Court that rights of citizens cannot be affected by mere entries in revenue records - Merely because a property is classified as a Government it cannot be stated that such a revenue document is a document of title - A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case has observed that entry in revenue records will not by itself establish title of Government to land in question - Assuming that land has been classified later as a land as per revenue records that by itself cannot be taken as conferring any right in favour of Government - Before Courts below appellant has not produced any document to support their case - As against document of title and enjoyment as pleaded and spoken by plaintiff defendants have not controverter specific case of plaintiff relying upon documents of title - Both Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff has established his title and enjoyment over suit B schedule property - Findings of Courts below are on basis of valid documents and supported by reasons - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
1. This Second Appeal is filed by the fourth defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 204 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are as follows:
2.1. Husband of first respondent and father of second respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S. No. 204 of 2004 for declaration of his title and possession in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property barring southern approximate 3 cents and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘B’ schedule property. The suit ‘B’ schedule property is described as a property measuring an extent of 6.5 ares equivalent to 16 cents in old Survey Nos. 405/B and 406 corresponding to Re-Survey No. 198/3. The suit is also for recovery of possession in respect of suit ‘C’ schedule. The case of the plaintiff is that the property comprised in old Survey No. 405/B of Killiyoor Village having an extent of 1 acre 93 cents and an extent of 38 cents in Survey No. 406 in the same village, originally belonged to one Kunchu Pillai Nadar S/o Nadan Kutti Nadar. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the properties comprised in these two survey numbers lies as a single block with well defined boundaries on all four sides. It is stated by the plaintiff that the son of Kunchu Pillai Nadar, namely, Nadankutti Nadar and the plaintiff orally partitioned the suit property on 21.07.1980 and that as per the said oral partition, the plaintiff got eastern one half of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and the remaining portion was allotted to the other son of Kunchu Pillai Nadrar namely Nadankutti Nadar. It is admitted that on the death of Nadankutti Nadar, his 1/2 share in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property devolved on second defendant being his daughter. Since the plaintiff claimed that he has constructed a residential building in the eastern portion of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and residing therein, the plaintiff claimed that ‘B’ schedule property absolutely belonged to the plaintiff and it forms part and parcel of plaint ‘A’ schedule. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that though patta for the suit property was granted to the plaintiff’s father, it was wrongly classified as a poramboke by the revenue officials without issuing any notice to the plaintiff at the time of resurvey and settlement. Stating that wrong classification of the plaint schedule property as poramboke would not confer any right in favour of any of the defendants and that such wrong classification is a nullity, the plaintiff claimed exclusive title in respect of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. After issuing notice to the defendants as required under Section 80 C.P.C. on 23.08.2001, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and possession and consequential injunction. The suit was contested by the appellant, namely, the Executive Officer of Killiyoor Town Panchayat. Stating that the entire extent of re-survey No. 198/3 and that the plaintiff and his brother, as former lessee of Government in the year 1999 had admitted the title of Government over plaint ‘B’ schedule property. It was further contended by the fourth respondent in the written statement that the plaintiff was never in exclusive possession over suit property at any point of time and that he was just a lessee under the revenue department in respect of an extent of 2.5 ares from the year 1999. It was also the case of the defendant that the suit property being a Government poramboke land, by proceedings dated 06.08.2001 the revenue department had surrendered the suit property to the third defendant, namely, Killiyoor Panchayat Union for the purpose of construction of library.
2.2. It is also submitted that following the order of Revenue Department, the third defendant had in turn issued an order in favour of the President of Elaignar Narpa
