Settled possession under patta entitles protection from interference except by due process of law.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. She filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was partly decreed by the Trial Court and limited injunction was granted restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from evicting the plaintiff from the suit property except by due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 to 3 filed an appeal and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was assigned to her under Patta issued by the Special Tahsildar, Backward and Adi Dravidar Welfare, Salem, dated 11.07.1996 and as such, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that the plaintiff had constructed a tiled house in the year 2001 and paid house tax to Salem Corporation. The defendants 1 to 3 claiming themselves as Office Bearers of Washermen Sangam approached the plaintiff and requested her to sell the suit property to the said Sangam. The plaintiff refused to accept the request. Therefore, they attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the above suit was filed seeking permanent injunction.

3. The 2^nd defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 1 and 3. According to them, the land measuring to an extent of 1 acre 25 cents in S.No.3/2E was allotted to Salavai Thozilalar Colony for Washermen Community. As per the approved House Site Plan, the land in northern portion was reserved for public use and shop for colony people. The portion of the said property was allotted by the 4^th defendant to the plaintiff and he has no authority to issue patta in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, according to the defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiff is in unlawful possession of the suit property and therefore, the patta issued in her name is liable to be cancelled. The defendants 1 to 3 also stated that the plaintiff earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 2001 for permanent injunction against the Office Bearers of the Sangam and the same was dismissed for default. Therefore, the present suit is not at all maintainable. On these pleadings, the defendants 1 to 3 sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and one V.Prakash was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, 11 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A11. The 2^nd defendant was examined as DW.1 and 6 documents were marked on the side of the defendants as Exs.B1 to B6.

5. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit property and therefore, she was entitled to limited injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit property except by due process of law. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the defendants 1 to 3 in Appeal No.27 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Salem. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Patta issued in the name of the plaintiff was not valid and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to decree for injunction and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

6. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law by order dated 19.02.2020:-

“a) Whether the appellant who was put in p