Possession claims necessitate proof of title; patta does not alone confer ownership without demonstrating landlord-tenant relationships.

J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, in A.S.No.201 of 2005, dated 13.07.2006, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman, in O.S.No.15 of 2002, dated

31.01.2003.

2. Heard Mr.S.Madhavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.R.Devaraj. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the appellant filed the suit seeking for recovery of possession on the ground that the suit property was originally owned by his father, who purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 18.10.1932 (Ex.A7). The suit property was originally a vacant site and later a superstructure was constructed. The father of the appellant died in the year 1974. Before his demise, there was a partition amongst the brothers through a registered partition deed dated 09.06.1974 and schedule 'C' was allotted in favour of the plaintiff's father to an extent of 18 ½ cents.

4. The further case of the plaintiff is that in the year 1971, the first defendant became a tenant under an oral agreement and was paying rent of Rs.30/- per month. An attempt was made by the first defendant to claim patta over the property and this was objected by the plaintiff.

However, the first defendant managed to get the patta in his favour and taking advantage of the same, he started claiming ownership over the property. It is under these circumstances, the present suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of delivery of possession.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that the Thoraya Patta was granted in the name of the first defendant and that this property was, in turn, settled in favour of the third and fourth defendants, and the third and fourth defendants have thus become the absolute owners of the property. Apart from that, insofar as the superstructure is concerned, the property tax is paid by the defendants. Thus, the defendants were claiming ownership over the property and they denied their relationship with the plaintiff as tenants and accordingly, sought for the dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has established ownership over the property and also that the defendants are the tenants in the property and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit as prayed for.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal.

8. The appellate Court, on considering the grounds raised in the appeal and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that there was a genuine dispute in title over the property and therefore, the plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of declaration of title. Apart from that, the appellate Court also found that the plaintiff did not establish that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Accordingly, the appellate Court proceeded to reverse the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed before this Court.

9. When the Second Appeal was admitted, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in distinguishing that the judgment rendered by the High Court in 1972 Law Weekly, 727 dealing with Grama Natham is not applicable to Natham?

(2) Whether the lower appellate Court is not equally wrong in distinguishing the judgment in 2000 (1) L.W., 488, sin