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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
E.Dhanapal –Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Departme – Respondent
W.A.No.2621 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.20846 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : 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

The classification of land as Government Poramboke precludes the appellants from successfully claiming ownership, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on them to establish lawful title.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Leaseholds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Government Poramboke land - Appellants claimed ownership based on documentation tracing back to 1905; however, the court found insufficient evidence establishing title and maintained that the property was classified as Government land, thus upholding the rejection of the claim for patta. (Paras 6, 10, 46)

(B) Burden of proof - The onus lies on the appellants to establish lawful title; lack of adequate evidence to prove ownership over the land accepted as Government property. (Paras 45, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellants sought to quash a government order rejecting their application for patta for a property they claimed to own, which was classified as Government Poramboke land.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge held that the appellants could not establish their title over the land which is classified as Government Poramboke.

Issues: The legitimacy of the claim over the land and the appropriate classification of the property as Government Poramboke were contested.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the appellants could not prove their ownership and were estopped from challenging the Government's title, given the classification of the land and the documentation presented.

Result: Writ Appeal dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

1.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.Lakshmi Samukdadas.

(i) One of the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer, namely T.S.Sabesan, filed a suit in O.S.No.1499 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the Revenue Department. The said suit was dismissed as abated by judgment and decree in O.S.No.1499 of 1982 dated 31.03.1987, as the sole plaintiff T.S.Sabesan died.

(j) Subsequently, some of the other legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer conveyed the entire property (in “as

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