Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its District Collector, Dharmapuri District - Appellant
Vs.
L.Narasinga Rao - Respondent
S.A.No.531 of 1997
Decided On : 28-06-2021
Civil Procedure code, 1908 - Section 100 - Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1963 - Sections 9, 10, 11 and 64 C - Praying for a declaration of plaintiffs title to and ownership and possession of suit schedule lands; for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from in any manner interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of said lands and from in any way dealing with said lands and for costs - Whether Lower Appellate Court has not committed error in upholding that Civil Court jurisdiction is not outside, on facts and circumstances of case - Whether Lower Appellate Court has not committed error in granting declarative relief to plaintiff/respondent by ignoring provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 26/1963 - Whether Lower Appellate Court was right in holding factum of possession in favour of plaintiff in absence of evidence – Held, learned Appellate Court on appreciation of documents filed on side of defendants found that documents shows plaintiffs are in occupation of properties in question even during subsequent period - Records relating to period prior to Notification under Act was available with defendants but defendants had not produced same before Court, despite issuance of notice to produce revenue records which is admittedly in custody of defendants and hence an adverse interference has to draw against defendant as its non-production - Lower Appellate Court had also rightly placed reliance upon notice to produce documents issued by plaintiffs to defendants and due to factum of non production of documents by defendants has rightly drawn adverse inference against defendants/appellants - Lower Appellate Court has found that prior documents have not been produced by defendants, as sought for plaintiffs/defendants whereas subsequent documents produced shows possession and enjoyment by plaintiffs/respondents and has rightly held that plaintiffs were in possession of property more than for statutory period and such finding rendered by Lower Appellate Court not suffer from any irregularity and illegality interference by this Court at this Second Appeal stage - Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.140 of 1995 dated 07.01.1997 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.784 of 1982 dated 31.01.1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri.
The defendants 1 & 2 are the appellants herein.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred as per ranking before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
(a) The suit in O.S.No.784 of 1982 was filed by the plaintiffs on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri against the State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the District Collector, Dharmapuri Districe and the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri praying for a declaration of the plaintiffs title to and ownership and possession of the suit schedule lands; for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands and from in any way dealing with the said lands and for costs.
(b) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property originally belonged to one Neelakanda Rao and Vittal Rao and others who were inamdars of Kothapetta Inam village in Krishngiri Taluk. They were private lands of the Inamdars. Vittal Rao sold items 1 to 4 of schedule 1 and item 1 of schedule 2 to one Eswara Rao under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1950. (Marked as Ex.A1). The said Eswara Rao subsequently sold the said lands in favour of the plaintiffs viz. R.Narasinga Rao and R.Krishnaji Rao for consideration under a registered sale deed dated 19.05.1952 (Marked as Ex.A2). Item 5 of the 1st schedule and item 2 of the second schedule were sold to the plaintiffs by Kuppani Bai and her sons Baroji Rao and Narasinga Rao, the legal representatives of the other Inamadar Thiru Neelakanda Rao for considerable by registered sale deed dated 01.11.1952. The said lands being private lands of the Inamdars was under cultivation of the predecessors in title and of the plaintiffs ever since the purchase.
(c) Kothapetta village was notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1963. Even though the lands and the said village was notified under the Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, the property does not become the property of the Government and does not vest absolutely in the State but is liable for being granted as Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of Act 26 of 1963.
(d) As the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have been in continuous cultivation of the said lands as private lands, they are entitled for patta under section 9 or section 11 of the Act.
(e) The Settlement Officer who conducted the enquiry under Act 26 of 1963 erroneously rejected the claim of the plaintiffs for patta under the Act but the said order was not communicated to the plaintiffs and they came to know of the rejection only on 18.11.1982 when there was an inspection carried out by the officials of 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit lands.
(f) As the defendants were attempting to utilize the plaintiffs' property for some of the purposes of their departments, cause of action had arisen and hence a suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Defendant's case:
(g) The Tahsildar, Krishnagiri had filed a written statement denying the title pleaded by the plaintiffs and raising a contention that once the village is notified under Act 26 of 1963, the entire village vests in the Government and all pre existing title in respect of the lands in the Village gets wiped off and that the order passed by the Settlement Officer rejecting the patta has become final and that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to go into
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
