JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.65 of 2008 dated 16.08.2010 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.227 of 2006 dated 14.12.2007 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.)

1. Aggrieved over the reversal of the decree and judgment granted by the Trial Court, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their ranking in the Suit.

3. The Suit was filed for delivery of possession. The defendants are the appellants. The Suit schedule property contains two items situated in (i) R.S.No.497/2 measuring an extent of 0.07 cents; and (ii) R.S.No.497/1 measuring an extent of 0.01 1/3 cents. The Trial Court after framing appropriate issues had dismissed the Suit against the respondent/plaintiff. On appeal, the Lower Appellate Court, partly allowed the same granting recovery of possession in respect of first item of the Suit property and confirming the decree in respect of second item of the Suit property. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants/appellants have preferred the above Second Appeal.

4. The brief facts leading to the Suit are as follows:

(a) Originally, a vast extent of lands belonged to the family of defendants. The plaintiff was working as an Accountant for the Estate of the defendants. In the year 1982, the lands were acquired by the Land Ceiling Authority under Land Reforms Act. The first item of the property in S.No.497/2 measuring an extent of 0.07 cents was assigned in favour of one Ponnaiyan and Anjammal wife of Ponnaiyan.

(b) It is the case of the plaintiff that he was cultivating the lands as tenant under the defendants and after acquisition, as a tenant, under the assignees. He filed a Suit for injunction against the defendants in O.S.No.95/2003, which was dismissed against the respondent/plaintiff and the appeal preferred was also dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent/plaintiff purchased an extent of 0.07 cents in R.S.No.497/2 from the assignee’s, namely, Ponnaiyan and Anjammal wife of Ponnaiyan. In so far as second item of the suit property is concerned, it is a dung pit. He claimed recovery of possession on the strength of the "B" Memo issued by the Government.

(c) The appellants/defendants have taken a categorical stand that both the properties were in their possession and the plaintiff does not have any valid title over the property, in view of the violation of the assignment conditions that the property was purchased within the prohibitory period specified in the Act. Therefore, he cannot claim title and consequently, is not entitled for recovery of possession.

(d) The Trial Court has proceeded on the basis of identity of the property. Since the plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the property as well as his possession, dismissed the Suit. While doing so, it omitted to go into the impact of the statutory conditions, as it was considered unnecessary.

(e) On appeal, the Lower Appellate Court has held that the defendants are not claiming possession on their own right. After divesting of the property from them by the Land Ceiling Authority, the possession of the defendants is illegal. Therefore, they cannot deny the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of violation of assignment conditions. It is for the Government to take action for violation of assignment condition. Since the Government has not taken action so far, it was presumed that the purchase by the plaintiff was valid.

5. On 29.10.2013, this Court has admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the learned Subordinate Judge erred in law in holding that though the sale in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A5 in contravention of law is valid contrary to the decision of this Hon’ble Court and reported in