Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 13820
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs.Justice S.SRIMATHY
PITCHAI – Appellant
Versus
PERUMAL – Respondent
A claimant must substantiate title with evidence; mere denial by the opposing party is insufficient for a successful claim or injunction.
Headnote:
Property - Title Dispute - Land Classification and Ownership - Act Section List: [] - The court examined land classification between Natham and Puramboke, emphasizing that title proof is essential for injunctions. The absence of evidence from one party led to upholding the patta issued to the other party.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit to declare a government order null and seek injunction against the defendant regarding land classified as either Natham or Puramboke. Previous litigations favored the defendant, who claimed valid ownership through sale deeds.
Issues: Key legal questions included ownership classification of the land, the necessity of deciding title for an injunction, and whether the appellate court could cancel the patta without title determination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ownership rights must be established with evidence for an injunction to be granted, and the appellate court erred in canceling the patta without sufficient title adjudication.
Final Decision: The second appeal is allowed, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the patta to the defendant.
JUDGMENT
The present second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.52 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai, dated 16.07.2021, modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.180 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, dated 15.06.2015.
2. The first defendant Pitchai is the appellant herein and the plaintiff Perumal is the 1st respondent herein and the 2nd and 3rd defendants District Collector and District Revenue Officer are the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as Plaintiff Perumal and 1st Defendant Pitchai and 2nd and 3rd Official Defendants as per the ranking in the suit.
3. The plaintiff Perumal had filed the suit in O.S.No.180 of 2012 to declare the order passed by the 3rd official defendant in Pa.Mu.B1/5309, dated 21.09.2012, as null and void and consequently, to restrain the 1st defendant Pitchai from interfering in the plaintiff Perumal’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4. The plaintiff Perumal has already filed a suit in O.S.No.198 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif Court for declaration and bare injunction in Old Survey No.64 and New Survey No.226/13 to an extent of 17 cents and the same was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff Perumal had failed to prove his ownership, whereas the defendant Pitchai had proved his ownership. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff Perumal preferred appeal suit in A.S.No.116 of 1984 and the same was allowed by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for framing additional issue whether the 1st Defendant Pitchai has absolute title and possession of the suit property and to consider the case. On such remand, the Trial Court has passed a judgment declaring that the said suit property belongs to the 1st Defendant Pichai. Aggrieved over the same, a first appeal was preferred again in A.S.No.59 of 1988 and the same was dismissed on 30.06.1994 on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Aggrieved over the same, the second appeal in S.A.No.1427 of 1994 was filed by plaintiff Perumal and the same was dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of Government as a party in the second appeal.
5. Again, second round of litigation was started wherein the said plaintiff Perumal filed another suit adding the Government as one of the defendants in O.S.No.81 of 1995 praying for declaration and injunction and the same was dismissed stating that the scheduled property is classified as Natham. The said 1st Defendant Pichai had filed an appeal in A.S.No.20 of 1997 and the said plaintiff Perumal had preferred Cross Appeal. And both were heard together and it was held in favour of 1st Defendant Pitchai and was dismissed against plaintiff Perumal. Against which neither the plaintiff Perumal nor the Government / official defendants preferred any appeal, therefore, the same has attained finality. Based on the said judgment passed in A.S.No.20 of 1997, the said 1st Defendant Pichai had preferred a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue patta in his name and the same was granted. Aggrieved over the same, the said plaintiff Perumal had preferred an appeal before District Revenue Officer (DRO) and the said appeal was dismissed on 21.09.2012.
6. The said plaintiff Perumal started another litigation by filing another suit / the present suit in O.S.No.180 of 2012 to declare the order passed by the 3rd official defendant in Pa.Mu.B1/5309, dated 21.09.2012, as null and void and consequently, to restrain the 1st defendant Pitchai from interfering in the plaintiff Perumal’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the same was dismissed by rendering a finding that plaintiff Perumal failed to prove his title and possession. Aggrieved over the same, the said plaintiff Perumal preferred an appeal in A.S.No.52 of 2015 and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, however directed the Government to restore the Schedule property as
