Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 885
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
D.S. Rajeswar – Petitioner
Versus
Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 5708 of 2010
Decided On : 09-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: V. Raghavachari, K.R. Laxman.
For the Respondents: N. Muthuvijayan, S. Ramu.
The compromise decree in the partition suit resulted in the relinquishment of rights over the property, and the gift deed for the educational institution was legally valid and binding.
Headnote:
Patta - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 - Ryotwari settlement - Writ Petition challenging order for patta issuance - Gift deed for educational institution - Partition suit - Compromise decree - Joint possession and enjoyment - Government poramboke classification - Dismissal of writ petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order for patta issuance in favor of the College and the classification of the land as Government poramboke. The dispute arose from a gift deed for an educational institution, a partition suit, and the subsequent joint possession and enjoyment of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise decree in the partition suit resulted in the petitioner's father relinquishing all his rights over the Zamin property. The court also noted that the gift deed for the educational institution was not challenged in a manner known to law. The court did not find any illegality or infirmity in the order for patta issuance and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the gift deed, the impact of the compromise decree on joint possession and enjoyment, and the classification of the land as Government poramboke.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compromise decree resulted in the petitioner's father relinquishing all his rights over the Zamin property, and the gift deed for the educational institution was not challenged in a legally acceptable manner. The court also emphasized the lack of evidence to support the claim of continued joint possession and enjoyment by the petitioner and his father.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found it devoid of any merits.
JUDGMENT :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in D.Dis.K4/4135/09 dated 10.02.2010 quash the same and direct the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner for the lands measuring 44.09.5 hectares comprised in S. No. 63A1, Melavaniangudy Village, Sivagangai District.
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the first respondent herein and to direct the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner for the lands measuring 44.09.5 hectares comprised in S. No. 63A1, Melavaniangudy Village, Sivagangai District.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner is one of the grandsons of late. Zmindar D.Duraisinga Raja of Sivagangai Zamin. During his life time, the said Duraisinga Raja purchased vast extent of land consisting of several items of properties under the sale deed dated 20.05.1918. After his demise, the said property devolved upon his two sons namely D.S. Shanmuga Raja and D.S. Subramania Raja.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the sons namely D.S. Shanmuga Raja founded an educational institution under the name and style of Raja Duraisingam Memorial College at Sivagangai. Under a said gift deed, an extent of 215.69 acres comprised in S. No. 63/1, Melavaniangudy Village was gifted in favour of Management of the College. This extent forms part of the larger extent purchased by Sivagangai Zamin. The petitioner's father namely D.S. Subramania Raja did not join in the execution of the gift deed. In the said gift deed, the donor was described as an individual owner of the property and it never referred about the presence of other co-owner namely D.S. Subramania Raja. No records were produced to the effect that D.S. Subramania Raja authorised his brother D.S. Shanmuga Raja to execute such a gift deed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that as required by the Educational Department, the Secretary of the College had executed a deed of re-conveyance dated 05.05.1953 in favour of the committee of Management of Raja Duraisingam Memorial College, Sivagangai for the purpose of obtaining grant for the college. Though an extent of 215.69 acres was gifted to the College, the College was in possession and enjoyment of only 108 acres in S. No. 63/1 and the balance extent was retained by the family members of the Raja Duraisingam.
5. The learned counsel had further contended that the petitioner's father had filed O.S. No. 54 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai as against his brother D.S. Shanmuga Raja for partition and the said suit ended in a compromise decree. He further pointed out that the property gifted to the College was one of the properties covered in the said suit. However, the first defendant namely D.S. Shanmuga Raja did not act as per the compromise and hence, both the brothers continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. In other words, despite a compromise decree, the brothers continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. The learned counsel had further contended that the entire Zamin was taken over under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 and Ryotwari settlement proceedings were initiated and a patta was issued for an extent of 178.90 acres comprised in S. No. 63/1 and for 28 acres in S. No. 63/10 in the name of Raja of Sivagangai taking into account that Sivagangai Zamin was in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that during UDR proceedings, the patta was issued in the name of the Secretary of the college, the brothers did not object to the same on the ground that the College was located in an extent of 108 acres and the remaining acres were in their possession and enjoyment. Sin
