Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
THE STATE OF TAMILNADU – Appellant
Versus
K. RAJENDRABABU – Respondent
Property - Land Title and Adverse Possession - Patta Passbook Act - Sections Referenced: 14 - Summary: The court addressed issues of land title, adverse possession, and the validity of revenue records, reaffirming that plaintiffs must establish title based on their own evidence rather than relying on the defendants’ weaknesses. The revenue entries are deemed fiscal and insufficient to prove ownership, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and mandatory injunction regarding a property classified as 'Tharisu' in revenue records, claiming ownership through oral sale and subsequent inheritance, while defendants disputed the ownership and sought to treat plaintiffs as encroachers.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld that plaintiffs failed to produce valid title evidence, showing that revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title convincingly, which they did not.
Issues: Whether plaintiffs can establish title to the property based on claims of adverse possession and whether the suit is maintainable under the Patta Passbook Act.
Ratio Decidendi: For a claim of title and possession, plaintiffs must provide strong evidence of their own title rather than rely on the insufficiencies of the defendants’ claims. Revenue records alone do not establish ownership.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal is allowed, and the judgments of lower courts are set aside.
JUDGMENT
The second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 07.04.2010 in A.S.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court poonamallee, confirming the judgement and decree dated 26.02.2004 in O.S.No. 28 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, poonamallee.
2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondents are plaintiffs in the above suit. The respondents as plaintiffs filed the above suit in O.S.No. 28 of 1994 for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to cancel the nature of the suit property under the classification of 'Tarisu' and record the same as the regular patta land in the Revenue records and for cost. The learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, by the judgement and decree dated 26.02.2004 decreed the suit. Not satisfied with the findings arrived at by the learned District Munsif Poonamallee, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 55 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court Poonamallee praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 26.02.2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee.
3.By judgement and decree dated 07.04.2010 the learned Sub Judge, Poonamallee dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the decree passed by the trial court in respect of the suit property. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants are before this Court with present the second appeal.
For the sake of convenience, herein after the parties would be referred as described by the trial Court.
4.The averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows:
The suit property originally owned by one Kari krishnama Chetty who sold the property to the plaintiff's grandfather the late Narasimhalu Naidu in the year 1912 for a sum of Rs.50/- by an oral sale. The plaintiff's grandfather Narasimhalu Naidu took possession of the suit property in pursuance to the oral sale and he became the absolute owner of the suit property and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death in the year 1914. After the demise of the said Narasimhalu Naidu, the said property was inherited by his only son Kistappa Naidu, the father of the plaintiff. The said kistappa Naidu was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death on 31.05.1983. The said Kishtappa Naidu had bequeathed all his properties including the suit property in favour of his sons, namely the plaintiffs herein, under a duly executed and registered Will dated 01.06.1981. After the demise of their father, the plaintiffs continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with other properties as absolute owners thereof. In pursuance of their ownership, the Revenue Authorities have issued patta in the name of their father on 12.01.1970. The plaintiffs father was paying the kist and other charges to the Revenue Authorities till his death. The plaintiffs are now paying the kist and other charges for the suit property. They have also obtained tractor loan from the Land Development Bank at Poonamallee for which the property is shown as security. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know that the suit property was classified and was recorded as 'Tharisu' in the revenue records. The said entry is totally incorrect as the suit property cannot be treated as waste land because it is a private property of an individual from time immemorial. Hence, there is no need or necessity to treat the suit property as an assessed waste land. In the revenue records, the defendants ought to have mentioned the property as a patta land of kishtappa Naidu, father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were requesting the Revenue Authorities to change the nature of land after deleting the word 'Tharisu' in the Revenue records. As the original owner late Kari Krishnama Chetti had already parted away the suit property under an oral sale in 1912, the title passed on and vested with the purchaser late Narasimhalu Naidu. Therefore, the late Kari Krishnama Chetti has no interest to any po
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
