Long possession of government land does not confer title or protection against eviction, and injunctions are contingent upon established title.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the dismissal of the Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

2. The appellants herein are sons of Palanimuthu. They claim title over the suit property on the basis of long possession of the suit property, which is classified as Government Porambokku.

3. Their claim is primarily based on the penal tax receipts (B Memo) paid by their father and by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for the continuous occupation of the land by encroachment and also the earlier litigations between them and one Veeramuthu, S/o Muthusamy in O.S.No.673 of 1996 before the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. The said suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction though has been allowed by the Trial Court against the first plaintiff, on appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2005 on the file of Sub-Court, Ariyalur, the Trial Court decree was set aside. The appellate Court has held that only the plaintiffs’ family is in long possession and peaceful enjoyment of the property ever since 1976. The second Appeal filed by the legal heirs of Veeramuthu before the High Court in S.A.No.857 of 2018 dismissed on 24.01.2019 confirming the judgment of the first Appellate Court.

4. While the fact being so, Veeramuthu suppressing the fact that the Trial Court decree dated 17.04.2004, later reversed, on appeal, had obtained patta for the suit property in his name vide proceedings of RDO dated 27.08.2013. As against the said proceedings, the first plaintiff preferred appeal and after enquiry, the patta wrongly issued to Veeramuthu, S/o Muthusamy, was cancelled on 30.09.2015. Thereafter, without right or title, the said Veeramuthu had created two sale deeds dated 18.04.2017 through his power agent Abdul Rahim as if he has title over the suit properties. The sale deeds dated 18.04.2017 in favour of Jubaitha Begum and Hakkim Basha were created with bad intention and malicious mind, knowing fully well that the decree in O.S.No.673 of 1996, dated 17.04.2004 was set aside and the patta issued in favour of Veeramuthu on 27.08.2013 also cancelled.

5. Not stopping with that, the purchasers had created bogus patta in their name and leased out the property to one Srinivasan and foisted a police complaint against the sons of the first plaintiff. Hence, the first plaintiff narrating the events filed W.P.No.13409 of 2018 for cancellation of the fraudulent sale deeds executed by the power agent of Veeramuthu and the patta issued in the name of Jubaitha Begum and Hakkim Basha, based on the fraudulent sale deeds. In the writ petition as directed by the High Court, enquiry was conducted and the patta in the name of Jubitha Begum and Hakkim Basha was cancelled and the suit land re-classified as ‘Government Proambokku’ in all the Revenue Records.

6. Alleging that, the revenue officials namely, the second and third defendants ever since 15.05.2020 onwards trying to disturb their peaceful long possession and making all attempts to dispossess them, the suit is filed.

7. The cause of action for the suit is described as below: -

“20. Cause of action: Cause of action for the suit has arisen on and from 15.05.2020 when onwards, 2 and 3 defendants at the instruction of 1^st defendant are frequently giving disturbances to the settled and long possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit properties by attempting to disspossess the plaintiffs from the suit properties abruptly and on all subsequent days, when threat for dispossession continues from the end of defendants to the plaintiffs possession of