Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear cases concerning title and possession of land, reaffirming that straightforward possession suits can proceed without a need for title declaration, particularly where government actions regarding land are contested.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

1. Both the appeals are arising against the judgment and decree of two different suits in O.S.No.228 of 1994 and O.S.No.241 of 1994. It is pertinent to mention here that, both the suits have been disposed of independently. However, the judgement was pronounced on the same day qua 05.09.2000. The subject matter of both the suit is one and the same. The parties are also one and the same. Apart from that, the facts, law and documents involved in these two Second Appeals are intertwined and interconnected. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to take up both the Second Appeals together for disposal.

2. The appellant in both the appeals is one Vasantha, who was the defendant in O.S.No.228 of 1994, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.241 of 1994. The plaintiff in O.S.No.228 of 1994 and the defendant in O.S.No.241 of 1994 qua Dharmapuram Aadeenam is the respondent in both the appeals. Besides Aadeenam, in SA.No.1114 of 2002, Government was also arrayed as respondents 2 and 3.

3. For the sake of convenience, this Court deems it appropriate to refer the parties according to their litigative status in O.S.No.228 of 1994.

4. The brief facts which give rise to the instant two Second Appeals is that, the suit property was originally belongs to the plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed dated 03.10.1972. Ever since the date of purchase, they have been in actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the plaintiff has issued a notice to the Government qua defendants 1 and 2 vide notice dated 06.08.1992 under Section 80 of CPC, on knowing that the 3^rd defendant (appellant) is attempting to get patta in respect of the suit property. After receipt of the said notice, the Government has sent a reply calling upon the plaintiff to give their explanation. The Government has also sought for the copy of the documents. In spite of the said fact, the Government did not enquire the matter and has ultimately attempted to issue patta in respect of the suit property in favour of the 3^rd defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit, not to issue any patta and in the meanwhile, if any patta had been issued, sought for a declaration that said patta is null and void and also sought for the relief of recovery of possession.

5. The said suit was resisted by the 3^rd defendant Vasantha, who is the appellant herein by contending that she has obtained a patta in respect of the suit property vide patta dated 25.08.1994 and that, in pursuance of such patta, she has also filed a suit in O.S.No.241 of 1994 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction not to disturb her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also contended by the 3^rd defendant that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 20 years, and that the said patta has been issued to an extent of 32 cents. Since the Government has issued patta in the name of the 3^rd defendant, the plaintiff cannot challenge such patta. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The Government has also resisted the suit on the ground that the suit property is the Government Poramboke Natham. Therefore, the sale deed, which stands in the name of the plaintiff will not bind upon the Government and that they have already issued the patta after following the due procedure.Hence, this defendant has also prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaint pleading in O.S.No.241 of 1994, where