Common Judgment:-Review Applications are filed against the judgement and decree dated 20.1.2010 passed in S.A.No.780 and 781 of 2004 by this Court.

2. By a common judgment dated 20.1.2010 in S.A.Nos.780 and 781 of 2004, this Court dismissed the second appeals. The appellant has preferred the present review petitions on the following grounds,:

i) This court having accepted that the suit property is a Grama natham and that the occupier of the Grama natham becomes the owner of the property ought to have allowed the appeals thereby confirming the title to the appellants;

ii) This court having found that one Karuppa Naidu and thereafter, the appellants were in long possession of the suit property, ought to have held that the appellant's predecessor was the first occupier of Grama natham;

iii) The Court ought to have considered that the appellants have established possessory title.

3. Before adverting to the above grounds and the maintainability of the present review petition, let us see the brief facts of the case which is as follows:

The Review petitioner/appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.309 of 1994 and the defendants in O.S.No.641 of 1995. They have filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of the suit property in S.F. No.520/C Thanthoni village, Malaipatti Natham, Karur Taluk. They have claimed that the suit property is a Gramanatham and the plaintiffs grandfather was in possession and enjoyment by putting up construction and was running a tea stall and also residing in the property. On the basis of the continuous possession and as well as on possessory title they have claimed title.

4. The respondents claimed that the suit property belonged to his grandfather Ponnusamy Pillai who purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 1.7.1919. He derived title by a release deed executed by his Brothers and Mother. He became the absolute owner and filed the other suit for declaration of title. Both the courts below dismissed the suit of the Revision petitioners/ appellants and decreed the suit of the respondent holding that the respondent had established his title and the appellants have no title. The appellants preferred the second appeals.

5. While disposing the Second Appeals, this court considered the plea of the appellants that the suit property is a Gramanatham, that the appellants' predecessor in title was in possession, but has held that the property was assigned by the Government to one Karuppa goundan as a Manai (House Site) from whom the respondent's grandfather purchased and the appellant has not proved either possessory title nor title by adverse possession.

6. Mr. R. Subramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the Gramanatham cannot be assigned as it was not vested with the Government and the occupier of the Gramanatham becomes the absolute owner. The learned counsel has also contended that once long possession is proved the appellants are entitled to possessory title and the plea of adverse possession was given up during the course of argument of the Second appeals.

7. This court found that the suit property is a Gramanatham and the first occupier becomes the holder of the land. However, this court has also found that the property was assigned to one Karuppa goundan from whom Ponnusamy Pillai purchased.

8. Before adverting to the grounds raised by the revision petitioners, I am of the considered view that the nature of Gramanatham and rights of the holder of such Gramanatham has to be clarified.

9. Gramanatham has been defined in the Law Lexican as follows:-

" Ground set apart on which the house of a village may be built"

Gramanatham is the village 'habitation' where the land holders may build houses and reside. They are also known as 'House Sites" (Manai). They were classified as Gramanatham to differentiate from Inam lands, Ryotwari lands, Pannai lands and Waste lands, while later vested with the Government, the Gramanatham ne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document