Civil courts maintain jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership disputes regarding unauthorized occupation despite provisions in the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2005 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Judge, Pattukkottai confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2004 passed in O.S.No.146 of 2003 by the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.146 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai is the appellant herein.

4. The fact of the case is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaint schedule properties are originally owned by one Muthusamy Thevar. The plaint schedule properties in S.No.225 to an extent of 1 acre 16 cents. In that property, many people have constructed a house, though it is classified in the revenue records as Government Poromboke. From Munusamy Thevar, the plaintiff's husband P.K.Srinivasan has purchased the plaint schedule property by way of sale deed, dated 24.09.1977. After purchase, they constructed a house and also running a shop. Since, the sixth defendant and his brothers have attempted to interfere in the plaintiff's possession, he filed a suit in O.S.No.52 of 1985 against the sixth defendant and his brothers. In the suit, a decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff's husband for one cent.

5. In such circumstances, the plaintiff's husband died on 14.01.1994 leaving the plaintiff as legal heir and the plaintiff was enjoying the property. In the plaint schedule property, he constructed one Vinayaga Temple. It is also maintained by them. The Municipality has also fixed the taxes for the house and collected the taxes and assigned Door No.172/1 and old Door No.172/A. He enjoyed the property by obtaining electricity connection and in this circumstances, the defendants/respondents have attempted to interfere. Hence, he has filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

6. The defendant has filed the written statement and contested the suit that the plaint schedule property belongs to the Highways Department. It is a Government poromboke. In the total extent, one ares of land was in occupation by the plaintiff. The Government has taken action to remove the unauthorised occupation of the plaintiff. Since, the property is the Government poromboke land, the plaintiff has no right on the title over the suit schedule property and he is not entitled for declaration and for injunction and hence, he seeks to dismiss the suit.

7. On the basis of the above said pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration:-

1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the case or not?

8. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, no witnesses were examined and 54 documents have been marked as Ex.Al to Ex.A54. On the side of defendants, no witnesses were examined and 2 documents have been marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B.2.

9. Upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by this Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai. The first appellate Court has also confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has filed a Second Appeal before this Court.

10. While admitting the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:-

a) Whether the suit, seeking declaration of plaintiff's title and consequential injunction will amount to questioning an action contemplated and taken under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act , 1905?

b) Whether the lower Courts are legally correct in dismissing the suit holding that the same is hit by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905?

11. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff's husband was in