The failure to follow mandatory procedures in transferring land titles renders such transfers invalid, preserving the rights of the original pattadar.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

1. This Second Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant arises out of the decree dated 20.02.2014 in A.S.No.36 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Harur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2012 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur. The suit is one for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to by their ranks as stood before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant are sisters. The plaintiff claims title to the suit properties namely Survey No.14/3 (Punjai – 1.88 acres), Survey No.18/2 (Punjai – 2.94 acres), and Survey No.18/6 (Punjai – 0.79 acres), together with a well and a thatched dwelling house, situate in Malai Thangi Village. Her claim is founded on Government assignment/D-card records, issued in her name viz., Ex.A1, relating to Survey No.18/2 for an extent of 2.94 acres with theervai Rs.0–91, and Ex.A2, relating to Survey No.14/3 (1.88 acres, theervai Rs.0–59) and Survey No.18/6 (1.68 acres, theervai Rs.0–25), under which she asserts exclusive title and possession. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, after repeatedly requesting her to sell a portion of the suit properties and failing, approached the revenue authorities and obtained patta in her favour without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, taking advantage of the plaintiff’s illiteracy. The plaintiff’s further case is that, without any lawful divestment of her assignment rights, the defendant procured mutation of patta and began asserting rights over portions of the suit lands, and that on 20.05.2011 the defendant attempted to interfere with her possession by ploughing the lands, which was resisted with the help of villagers.

4. In support of his enjoyment pursuant to the said assignments, the plaintiff produced Ex.A3, being a record of land ownership bearing Patta No. 84, relating to the suit survey numbers, namely: Survey No. 14/3 (punjai) with an extent of 1.88 acres and theervai fixed at 0.59; Survey No. 18/2 (punjai) with an extent of 2.94 acres and theervai fixed at 0.91; and Survey No. 18/6 with an extent of 0.80 acres and theervai fixed at 0.25.

5. The plaintiff further produced kist receipts, namely Ex.A4 for Fasli year 1388, Ex.A5 for Fasli year 1389, Ex.A6 for Fasli year 1392, Ex.A7 for Fasli year 1393, Ex.A8 for Fasli year 1394, and Ex.A9 for Fasli year 1395, being receipts of the mid-1980s culminating in the year 1986, evidencing payment of land revenue consistent with the theervai fixed under the assignments.

6. The plaintiff contends that the UDR patta dated 24.05.2011 issued in favour of the defendant is illegal and void, and that when she approached the revenue authorities seeking cancellation of the same, she was informed that such relief could be granted only pursuant to a decree of a competent civil court, necessitating the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

7. The appellant/defendant, while admitting the relationship between the parties as sisters and not disputing that the original Government assignments under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 stood in the plaintiff’s name, denies the plaintiff’s claim of exclusive title and possession. According to the defendant, the father of the parties, Ramasamy, had taken possession of the lands several decades prior to the suit, cleared and developed them, and brought them under cultivation when both the plaintiff and the defendant were minors, a