SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. Sundar, K. Rajasekar, JJ.
E.Dhanapal and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and ors. – Respondents
W.A.No.2621 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.20846 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.S.Krishnan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ganesh and Ganesh
For the Respondent:Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader Mr.C.Mohan & Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary for M/s.King and Partridge

Continuous enjoyment of property does not confer ownership without valid title, especially when the land is classified as Government Poramboke.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Leaseholds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Claim for grant of patta rejected - The property was classified as Government Poramboke land, and the appellants failed to establish their title despite a continuous flow of documents from 1905 to 2004 - The court denied the claim, affirming the nature of the land based on statutory records and past orders. (Paras 10, 20, 47)

(B) Claim Process - Legal heirs of previous owners claimed patta, but no evidence was provided to substantiate their ownership claim since all records indicated the land's status as Government property. (Paras 36-48)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, co-owners of the property in question, were denied patta by the authorities, citing it as Government land. They traced their title through historical documents dating back to 1905, but failed to provide sufficient evidence against the counter evidence presented by the respondents.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants acknowledged the property as Government Poramboke and lacked valid claims to patta.

Issues: Primary issues included whether the appellants could establish their ownership through historical documentation and the classification of the disputed property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that continuous enjoyment of the property alone does not confer ownership without valid title, highlighting the importance of proper records and Government classification.

Result: Writ Appeal dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. ownership and title of property (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. legal proceedings and claims for patta (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's observations on title and ownership (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. legal implications of quit rent and ownership (Para 27 , 28 , 35 , 36)
5. assessment of ownership claims based on quit rent (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
6. bona fides of claims and attempts to secure patta (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 46)
7. final judgment and orders of the court (Para 47 , 48 , 49)

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17.10.2022, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants in W.P.No.10423 of 2013 for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.99, Revenue LD-I(1) Department, dated 28.03.2013, and to direct the 5th respondent to carry out the changes in all Revenue records in favour of the appellants in respect of the property comprised in R.S.No.1455, G.L.R.S.No.363, St.Thomas Mount Village, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, admeasuring 1 Acre and 17,947 sq.ft., roughly around 25.6 Grounds.

2.The appellants herein claim that they are the co-owners of the property measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 17,947 sq.ft. in R.S.No.1455, G.L.R.S.No.363 at St.Thomas Mount Village, Alandur Taluk. It is stated by the appellants that they have purchased the property and applied for patta jointly and their claim for patta was rejected by the order impugned in the writ petition by the 1st respondent.

3.The appellants trace their title to the property in the following manner :

(a)Originally, the property was owned by one Mrs.Susan Pembertan who had in turn had purchased it from one Mrs.Katheja Beevi Ammal.

(b)Susan Pembertan had borrowed a sum of Rs.300/- on 27.10.1902 by mortgaging the property in favour of one Krishnaswamy Chettiar. The mortgagee filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 1904 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, and obtained a decree on 24.03.1904, directing the mortgagor Susan Pembertan to pay a sum of Rs.570/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Since the mortgagor Susan Pembertan could not pay the decreeted amount, she executed a sale deed dated 19.09.1905, conveying the property in question in favour of the decree holder namely Krishnaswamy Chettiar and his brother Govindaswamy Chettiar. The sale deed was in respect of a Bungalow and the appurtenant land.

(c)Krishnaswamy Chettiar and his brother Govindaswamy Chettiar and their sons jointly conveyed the property in favour of one Captain Clemet George Taylor by a registered sale deed dated 12.09.1935, registered as Doc.No.1422 of 1935.

(d)Captain Clemet George Taylor mortgaged the land with one Oscar Harry Sheffield by way of registered Mortgage Deed dated 16.04.1936. After discharging the mortgage, Captain Clemet George Taylor sold the property to one Mrs.B.E.Montaut by sale deed dated 17.04.1946 which is registered as Doc.No.663 of 1946.

(e)Subsequently, B.E.Montaut sold the property in favour of an Advocate by name T.S.Swaminatha Iyer by sale deed dated 14.10.1946 which is registered as Doc.No.2101 of 1946.

(f) T.S.Swaminatha Iyer who purchased the property in 1946, applied for patta in the year 1968.

(g)On 10.06.1974, the Special Tahsildar, Saidapet, issued notice stating that the Government proposed to resume the entire land, since the land is a time expired lease land belongs to the Government. In response to the notice, T.S.Swaminatha Iyer gave a representation on 11.06.1974 and later, submitted all the documents asserting that the land was never a leasehold land and requested the District Collector to grant patta for the land. The Special Tahsildar, after holding enquiry, opined that the lands are not leasehold lands and recommended for grant of patta.

(h)On 03.10.1974, T.S.Swaminatha Iyer died leaving behind his children as legal heirs, namely, T.S.Neela, T.S.Tara Manohar, T.S.Sailesan, T.S.Sabesan, T.S.Sathiabama and T.S.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top