Madras High Court
Neelakandan vs Jayaraman on 3 March, 2020
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
S.A.No.841 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.03.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.841 of 2008
and
MP.No.1 of 2008
1. Neelakandan
2. Ramasamy
...Appellants
Vs
1. Jayaraman
2. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Cusba Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi Taluk.
3. The District Collector,
Villupuram District Collectorate,
Villupuram. ...Respondents
------------------
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC praying to prefer
this Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal in this Hon'ble Court against the
Judgment and Decree dated 25.1.2008 passed in A.S.No.105 of 2005 on the file
of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, reversing the judgment and decree dated
18.04.2005 made in O.S.No.462 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional District
Munsif, Kallakurichi.
1/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
For Appellants Ms. V. Srimathi
For Respondents : Mr. N. Manoharan for R1
Mr. Jagannathan, Spl.
Govt. Pleader (CS), for R2 & R3
Judgment
The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants before this Court and the suit is
one for bare injuction.
2. The parties are referred to in the same array as in the suit.
3. The plaintiff had filed a suit O.S.No.462 of 1999 on the file of the II
Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi for a permanent injuction restraining the
defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property.
4. The plaintiff would contend that the suit properties were assigned to him
by the Government under DKT No. 420 of 91 on 27.03.1982. Patta in respect of
the suit properties was issued in the name of the plaintiff bearing Patta No. 792.
2/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
The plaintiff would contend that from the date of allotment the plaintiff has been
paying the kist and other revenue dues in respect of the suit property. The
defendants are strangers to the suit property. All of a sudden, on 10.07.1999 the
defendants had trespassed into the suit property and formed a cart-track to reach
their lands. The 3rd and 4th defendants are the public authorities and therefore have
been impleaded as parties in the said suit.
5. The second-defendant had filed a written statement, which has been
adopted by the first-defendant, in which he would state that the suit properties
were not assigned to the plaintiff. Had the suit properties been assigned to the
plaintiff, he would have filed the original DKT order and would not have filed a
certified copy of the same. It is their case that the property in question is a
poromboke land belonging to the Government. The cart-track runs through the
Survey Nos. 33/1, 33/4 and 33/5, which is a public road in existence for over 40
years and further 20 families were using the said pathway to reach their lands and
the temple.
3/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
6. According to defendans 3 and 4, the plaintiff was never in possession of
the suit property. They would contend that since the suit properties are
uncultivable lands and the plaintiff was never in enjoyment of the suit property,
the suit, being one simpliciter for a bare injunction, has to be dismissed.
7. The II Additional District Munsif had framed three issues which are as
follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injuction as sought for
in respect of the suit properties?
2. Whether the cause of action is true?
3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
8. On considering the facts, oral and documentary evidence as also the
Commissioner's Report and plan, the learned District Munsif held that the
plaintiff was not entitled to the relief as claimed, as there was a cart-track in
existence in the suit property particularly from the year 1991 as is evident from
Ex.B1 cart-track agreement dated 22.02.1991. Even if the lands are assigned, such
4/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
assignment is subject to the rights of others over the existing pathway and by
reason of the assignment the plaintiff has not been given an exclusive right over
the same. The learned District Munsif has also placed reliance upon Ex.B1,
wherein the cart-track has been shown as the western side boundary of the subject
property. The learned Judge therefore proceeded to hold that the cart-track was
already in existence and that the plaintiff has also not proved the cause of action.
As a consequence, the Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree as
prayed for.
9. The said judgment and decree was taken on appeal by the plaintiff in
A.S.No. 105 of 2005 before the Subordinate Judge at Kallakurichi. The learned
Subordinate Judge had reversed the judgment and decree of the learned District
Munsif by holding that the assignment deed produced was a certified copy, which
is a public document and therefore a valid one. That apart, the leaned Judge held
that once the assignment is held to be valid, the same can be set aside only in the
manner known to law and in the instant case there is no such order to that effect.
Therefore, the Appeal was allowed and the decree and judgment in O.S.No.462 of
1999 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif's Court, Kallakurichi was set
5/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
aside. It is challenging this reverse judgment and decree, the defendants 1 and 2
are before this Court.
10. Ms. V. Srimathi arguing on behalf of the appellants would state that the
plaintiff has failed to prove assignment since it was only a certified copy that was
produced and the original was not produced. She would further argue that the
cart-track has been in existence well over a very long time and Ex.B1 would
confirm the same. She would further submit that the Patta No.792 was not
standing in the name of the plaintiff. She would argue that the lower Appellate
Court has failed to appreciate these facts and has gone on a tangent. She would
also contend that the Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the Advocate
Commissioner's Report which clearly proves the existence of the cart-track. She
would therefore contend that judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate
Judge has to be set aside and the judgment and decree of the II Additional District
Munsif in O.S.No.462 of 1999 confirmed.
11. Per contra, Mr. N. Manoharan, leaned counsel appearing for the 1 st-
respondent would contend that the DKT assignment, which was filed as Ex.A1
6/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
was a certified copy issued by the public authority. He would rely on the
provisions of section 65(e), 74, 76 and 79 of the Evidence Act to contend that
Ex.A1 was a valid document and the lower Appellate Court has rightly considered
the same. He would further argue that the lower Appellate Court had rightly
reversed the finding of the learned District Munsif that even assuming that the
lands were assigned to the plaintiff, in view of the existence of the cart-track, there
is violation of condition No.7 in Ex.A1. The Government having assigned the
entire lands to the plaintiff cannot now contend that the suit property is a cart-
track. He would argue that the lower Appellate Court had taken note of the fact
that the assignment in favour of the plaintiff had not been revoked or cancelled
and when it is so, land cannot be assumed to be a public cart-track. He relied
upon the judgment in Kesavan Vs. Muthu reported in 2012 (6) CTC 303 in
support of his contentions that without there being proper cancellation in the
manner known to law, the patta issued in respect of assigned lands would confer
valid title on the assignee.
12. Heard the counsel and perused the papers.
7/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
13. The suit is one for an injunction in respect of the following properties:
a) 32/1 measuring 0.43 cents
b) 33/4 measuring 0.50 cents
c)33/5 measuring 1.30 cents
d)34/1 measuring 0.36 cents, totalling 2.59 cents in Thottapadi village limit,
Kallakurichi Taluk comprising Patta No. 792.
14. The plaintiff has produced the assignment-patta in respect of the suit
property. The document produced is a certified copy of the assignment deed
issued by the public authority. The plaintiff has given reason as to why he could
not produce the original viz. the same has been misplaced and therefore the
certified copy of the deed has been obtained. The lands have been assigned to the
plaintiff as early as in the year 1982. Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act describes
the cases in which secondary evidence can be given, when the original is a public
document within the meaning of section 74. Section 74 in turn describes as to
what the public documents are. Section 76 talks about the certified copies of
public documents and section 79 of the Evidence Act provides that certified copies
8/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
of public documents being certified by any officer with due authority shall be
presumed to be genuine.
15. In the instant case, the certified copy has been issued by the Deputy
Tahsildar who is the public authority. Therefore, the document can safely be
presumed to be genuine. Further, the defendants have not let in any evidence
whatsoever to disbelieve the said document, except stating that the document is
only a certified copy and not the original. The patta and DKT number in Ex.A1 -
Assignment deed is reiterated in the later documents Ex.A3 and A4 which also
goes to show that Ex.A1 is a valid document under which the suit lands had been
assigned. The survey number in Ex.B1 is different from the suit survey number.
16. Ex B1 has been relied on by the Trial Court to come to the conclusion
that as early as in the year 1991, the cart track has been in existence. A perusal of
Exs. C1 and C2 would indicate that the same do not relate to the suit survey
numbers and therefore the reliance upon the said document appears to be
misdirected. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff
would apply on all fours to the facts of this case. The learned Judge has dealt with
9/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
in extenso the evidentiary value that should be attached to the Patta and where
patta is available whether it is sufficient evidence to establish ownership. The
learned Judge has ultimately observed that when a property is assigned by the
Government, Patta will be the only document conferring title. However, where the
property is acquired by any of the modes provided under the Transfer of Property
Act and in such circumstances, patta would only be a piece of evidence to show
possession. In the case on hand, it is clear that the land has been assigned to the
plaintiff under Ex.A1 and therefore it is a valid document to prove title. It is not
the case of the defendants that this assignment has been cancelled by the
authorities in the manner known to law. In these circumstances, the judgment and
decree of the lower Appellate Court viz. the learned Subordinate Court,
Kallakurichi, does not call for any interference. The questions of law 1 and 2 are
therefore answered against the defendants/appellants and answered in favour of
the plaintiff/first-respondent.
17. In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree in
A.S.No.105 of 2005 dated 25.01.2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Kallakurichi are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
10/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.841 of 2008
Petition is closed.
03.03.2020
mrn
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
To,
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Kallakurichi.
2. The II Additional District Munsif,
Kallakurichi.
3. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Cusba Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi Taluk.
4. The District Collector,
Villupuram District Collectorate,
Villupuram.
P.T.ASHA, J.
11/12
http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.No.841 of 2008 mrn S.A.No.841 of 2008 and MP.No.1 of 2008 03.03.2020 12/12 http://www.judis.nic.in