Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
D. Srinivasan - Appellant
Versus
K. Amavasai & Ors. - Respondents
A.S.(MD). No. 96 of 2020 & C.M.P(MD). Nos. 3357 of 2020 & 2917 of 2023
Decided On : 19-06-2023
assignment - title to suit properties - 1983, 1994 - The court discussed the assignment orders granted in favor of Seeniammal and Ramuthai Ammal, the subsequent legal proceedings, and the final confirmation of the assignment orders in 1994. The court highlighted the importance of establishing possession following title for vacant land and emphasized that possession follows title.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the order confirming the assignment in favor of the plaintiff had not been served on the defendants and the plaintiff had not established possession over the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assignment orders in favor of the plaintiff reached finality in 1994 and that possession follows title for vacant land. The court also noted that the defendants had not established title or possession, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's title to the suit properties, possession and enjoyment, entitlement to declaration of title and permanent injunction, and the relief the plaintiff was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing possession following title for vacant land and highlighted that possession follows title. It also noted that the defendants had not established title or possession, leading to the plaintiff being entitled to the relief sought.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the Appeal Suit was allowed, decreeing the suit for declaration as sought for and permanent injunction. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2020 made in O.S.No.133 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai.)
1. This Appeal suit has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2020 made in O.S.No.133 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents are the defendants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status in the suit.
3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit properties and also to declare the sale agreement dated 15.03.2007 as null and void.
4. The case of the plaintiff is described as follows:
i) The suit property originally belonged to one Seeniammal and Ramuthai Ammal by virtue of an assignment deed executed by the Government on 30.08.1983. Challenging the assignment, one Pappammal and Muthupillai @ Sivanammal filed separate petitions before the Sub Collector, Usilampatti. However, the said petitions have been dismissed by the Sub Collector, Usilampatti, on 09.06.1986. Challenging the said order, Muthupillai @ Sivanammal alone filed a revision petition before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai. However, the said revision was allowed on 06.10.1987. Challenging the same, an appeal has been filed before the Commissioner, Land Administration, Madras, and the same was allowed on 28.07.1993 and the matter was remanded back to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, to decide the matter after giving an opportunity to the assignees. After remand, the District Revenue Officer has passed the order confirming the assignment in favour of Seeniammal and Ramuthai Ammal. That order came to be passed on 13.08.1994.
ii) Ramuthai Ammal, who was an assignee in respect of 2nd item of property, executed a settlement deed on 26.02.1998 in favour of Seeniammal, who is none other than her mother. Therefore, Seeniammal became the absolute owner of both survey numbers and as such, Seeniammal, being the paternal mother of the plaintiff, had executed a settlement deed dated 18.06.2003 in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 are the son and the grand son of Muthupillai @ Sivanammal. After the death of the said Muthupillai @ Sivanammal, the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on 21.04.2018 and the defendants 1 and 2 told that they executed a sale agreement in favour of one Mani. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the sale agreement is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property and he is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
5. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed written statement, wherein it is contended by the defendants 1 and 2 that the assignment orders granted to Seeniammal and Ramuthai Ammal were not valid in the eye of law and the same are in violation of the Board's standing orders. Admitting that there were proceedings before the District Revenue Officer and the Commissioner of Land Administration, it is the further contention of the defendants 1 and 2 that the suit properties are originally classified as Maichal poramboke (nka;r;ry; g[wk;nghf;F). The maternal grand-father of the plaintiff was the Bank Officer and by his influence, the plaintiff obtained assignment unlawfully. A portion of the property is cultivated by the defendants 1 and 2 and the remaining portion of the land is lying fallow. The plaintiff has produced the fake document as if he is cultivating the property and the defendants 1 and 2 had disputed the title of the plaintiff.
6. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and 24 documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.24.
Possession follows title for vacant land, and the plaintiff's entitlement to relief is based on establishing title and possession.
The assignment of land by revenue officials in the face of ongoing civil litigation and without notifying the contesting parties is invalid. Civil courts have jurisdiction to grant relief in such cas....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove possession in a claim for permanent injunction and the implications of Section 78 of the Transfer of Property Act on th....
The requirement for a clear description of immovable property in the plaint and the need for acceptable documents to establish possession and enjoyment were central to the court's decision.
The court affirmed that registered sale deeds establish ownership and possession, overriding claims of government assignment when not substantiated by evidence.
In matters of permanent injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate legal possession, which was upheld as valid against claims of governmental assignment, affirming the necessity of evidential support fo....
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
