Civil court jurisdiction prevails in title disputes despite tenancy claims under the Tamil Nadu Act.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant challenging the judgment dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Subordinate Court, Pattukottai in A.S. No. 41 of 2011, which reversed the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai, dated 31.07.2007 in O.S.

No. 189 of 2005.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks as assigned in the trial court.

4. The brief and necessary facts for the disposal of this second appeal are set out below: The plaintiff claims that the entire extent of land measuring 2 acres and 88 cents in Survey No.167/3 originally belonged to his family, with the revenue records standing in the name of his grandfather, Chinniah Devar @ Periya Thambi Devar. However, due to an error, the name of the defendant’s father, Velu Devar, was subsequently entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff further states that, following the alienation of certain portions of the larger extent by his father, Rengasamy Thevar, he claims ownership and possession of the suit property, presently comprised in Survey No.167/3A2, measuring 12 ares (equivalent to 30 cents). Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks a declaration of title and a consequential injunction.

5. The defendant, while denying the plaintiff’s claim, asserted that his father had also been in enjoyment of the suit property and that, during the updation of the revenue records, his name was included along with those of others. The defendant further raised a plea of adverse possession.

6. At the time of admitting the second appeal on 06.06.2018 this court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration which are extracted verbatim below:

(a) Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court below is vitiated for non-consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective?

(b) Whether the first appellate court below had erred in adverse interpretation on R.S.R. Records as against the defendant when the plaintiff himself admitted the title and possession of defendant’s father over the suit property through R.S.R. records?

(c) Whether the first appellate court below had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has valid title and is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property after considering the correct perspective ?

(d) Whether the first appellate court below has jurisdiction to decide the title and possession regarding land holder and Melvaramdars under the Cultivating Tenants Act?

7. On the plaintiff’s side, reliance was placed upon the sale deed dated 01.05.1956 (Ex. A1), executed by his father, Rengasamy Devar, wherein the northern boundary is described as land belonging to the plaintiff’s father. In addition, supporting documents such as the mortgage deed (Ex. A2), discharge receipt (Ex. A3), family partition deed (Ex. A4), and power of attorney deed (Ex. A5) were also produced. These documents also proved that the plaintiff’s father owned land situated to the north of the property conveyed under Ex. A1.

8. On the side of the defendant, reliance was placed on the fact that his father’s name was included in Joint Patta No.286, supported by the production of certain kist receipts. However, it was noted that some of these receipts pertained to Patta No.782, which bore no relevance to the suit property. Crucially, no pre -UDR documents were filed to establish that the defendant’s predecessor had been in possession or enjoyment of th