1. Joint family property — Dispute over title — Suit for mandatory injunction to remove names from patta. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3352
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
C. Kumarappan, J
Saradambal – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Khan – Respondent
S.A.No.75 of 2007
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, Mr.T.R. Rajaraman
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Mr. V.Ramakrishnan, Mr.C.Sathish
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, Mr.T.R. Rajaraman
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Mr. V.Ramakrishnan, Mr.C.Sathish
Important Points
A suit for mandatory injunction to correct revenue records (patta) is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when a registered title document is contested, and such suits are specifically barred under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Civil Procedure Code: S.100
Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act: S.14, S.12
Specific Relief Act, 1963: S.Chapter VI
Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act: S.14, S.12
Specific Relief Act, 1963: S.Chapter VI
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act - Section 14 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Chapter VI - Suit for mandatory injunction to remove names from revenue records - Maintainability - Where a registered sale deed exists in favor of the defendant and title is disputed, a mere suit for mandatory injunction without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable. (Paras 14, 15, 19)
(B) Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act - Section 14 - Bar of suits - No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book omitted or amended, provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
(C) Revenue Records - Legal Status - It is a well-settled principle that revenue entries cannot confer any title and revenue authorities cannot adjudicate upon the title of the property. (Paras 16, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of ancestral joint family properties. The first defendant asserted that his father had purchased the properties in 1962 via a registered sale deed, which the plaintiffs alleged was forged. After a joint patta was issued by the revenue authorities, the plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the removal of the first and second defendants' names from the patta. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiffs ought to have sought the relief of declaration.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the first defendant set up a title based on a registered sale deed, the plaintiffs were required to seek a declaration of title. Additionally, Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act prevents a direct suit for amendment of patta entries without a declaration of rights.
Issues: Whether a suit for mandatory injunction to remove names from a patta is maintainable without a relief of declaration when title is disputed, and whether such a suit is barred by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a party claims title through a registered document, the opposing party must seek a declaration of title rather than a simple injunction for revenue record correction. Furthermore, Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act explicitly bars suits for amending patta entries unless accompanied by a suit for declaration of rights.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
(B) Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act - Section 14 - Bar of suits - No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book omitted or amended, provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
(C) Revenue Records - Legal Status - It is a well-settled principle that revenue entries cannot confer any title and revenue authorities cannot adjudicate upon the title of the property. (Paras 16, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of ancestral joint family properties. The first defendant asserted that his father had purchased the properties in 1962 via a registered sale deed, which the plaintiffs alleged was forged. After a joint patta was issued by the revenue authorities, the plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the removal of the first and second defendants' names from the patta. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiffs ought to have sought the relief of declaration.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the first defendant set up a title based on a registered sale deed, the plaintiffs were required to seek a declaration of title. Additionally, Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act prevents a direct suit for amendment of patta entries without a declaration of rights.
Issues: Whether a suit for mandatory injunction to remove names from a patta is maintainable without a relief of declaration when title is disputed, and whether such a suit is barred by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a party claims title through a registered document, the opposing party must seek a declaration of title rather than a simple injunction for revenue record correction. Furthermore, Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act explicitly bars suits for amending patta entries unless accompanied by a suit for declaration of rights.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs argued suit for mandatory injunction maintainable without declaration. Defendants argued declaration suit necessary due to disputed title. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. First Appellate Court correctly held that suit for mandatory injunction without relief of declaration is not maintainable when title is disputed. (Para 14 , 15 , 19 )
4. When title is disputed, a suit for mandatory injunction without a declaration of title is not maintainable. (Para 15 , 19 )
5. Second appeal dismissed — Judgment of the First Appellate Court confirmed — No order as to costs. (Para 25 )
6. Is a suit for mandatory injunction maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when title is disputed?
No. When the defendant sets up a title and the plaintiff disputes it, the plaintiff must seek a declaration of title, not merely a mandatory injunction. (Para 14 , 15 , 19 )
7. Does Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act bar a civil suit for removal of names from patta?
Yes. Section 14 bars a suit against the Government or its officers for entry, omission, or amendment in a patta pass book, providing only a suit for declaration under the proviso. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
8. Can revenue authorities adjudicate on the title to property?
No. Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate on the title to property; they can only make entries in revenue records without deciding title. (Para 16 , 17 )
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.07.2006 in A.S.No.52 of 2005 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai reversing the Judgment and decree dated 30.03.2005 in O.S.No.422 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Chengam.
JUDGMENT
The instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. The respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.
3.The brief facts, which give rise to the filing of this second appeal, are as follows:
(i) The suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of one Mr.Vellaiya Pandithar, who was the maternal grand father of plaintiffs 2 to 7, and his two sons namely one Mr.Raghavan Pandithar and one Mr.Subban Pandithar. Here, Mr.Raghavan Pandithar's wife predeceased him, and later, the said Mr.Raghavan Pandithar also died issueless. Therefore, his half share of the properties also devolved upon the said Mr.Subban Pandithar, who was the father of the plaintiffs, and after his demise, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit properties and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
(ii) During September 1996, the first defendant began to lay a false claim over the suit properties alleging that his father one Mr.Lathif khan purchased the suit properties in the year 1962 from the said Mr.Subban Pandithar. According to this plaintiff, the sale deed dated 10.04.1962 was a forged and fabricated one through which, the D1 could not have any title over the suit properties. The first defendant filed an application before the 3rd defendant to transfer the patta relating to the suit properties from the names of the plaintiffs to his name. However, the 3rd defendant transferred the patta jointly in the names of plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 & 2, without making any enquiry. Therefore, the plaintiffs came forward with the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 3 and 4 to remove the names of the defendants 1 and 2 from the patta relating to the suit properties.
4.The said suit was resisted by the first defendant by contending that the suit properties originally belonged to the joint family of the said Mr.Vellaiya Pandithar and his two sons namely the said Mr.Raghavan Pandithar and the said Mr.Subban Pandithar. After the death of the said Mr.Vellaiya Pandithar, his sons were jointly enjoying the suit properties. Whileso, after the demise of the said Mr.Raghavan Pandithar, who died issueless, as his wife predeceased him, the properties of the said Mr.Raghavan Pandithar exclusively devolved upon the said Mr.Subban Pandithar. The plaintiffs have never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. By virtue of the sale deed dated 10.04.1962 executed by the said Mr.Subban Pandithar, the father of the D1 had been enjoying the suit properties. He orally leased out the suit properties to his vendor, Mr.Subban Pandithar on condition that he should pay the kist and deliver the rent to him. Taking advantage of the absence of the defendants, the plaintiffs made entries by influencing the officials under the UDR scheme. If really the plaintiffs got title over the suit properties, they should have sought for a relief of declaration and that they could not seek mere a mandatory injunction, without seeking the relief of declaration.
Evidence & documents and Findings of the Court below:-
5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs examined four witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and 9 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and three documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.
6. The Trial Court framed the following issues
1. Whether the sale deed, dated 10.04.1962 executed in favour of the defendant's father is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
2. Whether the oral
