Possession follows title; a suit for declaration of title is maintainable despite claims of res judicata and adverse possession if the plaintiff proves ownership.

JUDGEMENT :

S.A.No.838 of 2016 is presented against the judgment and decree of the court of Principal District Judge at Namakkal in A.S.No.3 of 2016 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in O.S.No.87 of 2012 dated 01.12.2015.

2. S.A.No.839 of 2016 is presented against the judgment and decree of the court of Principal District Judge at Namakkal in A.S.No.4 of 2016 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in O.S.No.249 of 2012 which was renumbered as O.S.No.48 of 2014 dated 01.12.2015.

3. In both the appeals, the appellant before me is the defendant in the respective suits.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

5. The case of the plaintiff/Seeranga Gounder is that the property bearing S.No.322/6A to an extent of 0.572 hectares originally belonged to one Nallyammal. She had alienated the property by the way of a registered sale deed on 25.11.1940 in favour of one Komara Gounder. The plaintiff/Seeranga Gounder is the son of Komara Gounder. The plaintiff for the purpose of his vocation, went abroad and therefore, he was not available in the country. Taking advantage of his absence, the revenue department had mutated the patta, stating it as “Madha Koil” Poramboke.

6. The plaintiff/Seeranga Gounder would further plead that between Komara Gounder and other co-sharers namely Sellappa Gounder and Mariyayeeammal, a suit for partition was filed in O.S.No.8 of 1941 on the file of the learned District Munsif at Namakkal. The said suit did not go for trial, but ended in a compromise.

7. As per the compromise decree, the property situated in the north of the road was allotted to the defendant and the property to the south of the road was allotted to Komara Gounder. Subsequently, in order to have an equitable arrangement between themselves, the defendants in that suit exchanged their property with the property allotted to Komara Gounder. By virtue of this exchange, the property situated in the north of the road fell to the share of Komara Gounder. In other words, the first item of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.8 of 1941 fell to Sellappa Gounder and the second item fell to Komara Gounder.

8. The plaintiff/Seeranga Gounder pleaded that Komara Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is an admitted case that the property belonged to Vallipuram Mittadhar and due to the enactment of the Land Reforms Laws 1948, in particular, The Estates Abolition Act, 1948, the mitta was abolished. On the survey being done during that time, the property, bearing S.No.322/6A, was given S.No.322.

9. In 1993, finding that the property had been reclassified as Poramboke, the plaintiff gave a representation to the Revenue Tahsildar for sub division of the property and for grant of patta. The property was subdivided and patta to an extent of 0.572 hectares was assessed. Since it was treated as Madha Koil Poramboke and the plaintiff/Seeranga Gounder attempted to fence the property, the defendant herein interfered with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff/Seeranga Gounder filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.600 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif at Namakkal.

10. The learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, partly decreed the suit holding that as per the sale deed dated 25.11.1940, the father of the plaintiff/Seeranga Gounder had purchased a half share of the property measuring a total extent of 90 ft. x 75 ft. and therefore, he was entitled to that part of the property measuring an extent of 45 ft. x 37 ½ ft. under the sale deed.

11. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff/Seeranga Gounder and the defendant filed appeals before the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in A.S.No.183 of 2002 & A.S.No.184 of 2002 respectively. The appeal filed by Seeranga Gounder was allowed and the suit was decreed as prayed for. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendan