Madras High Court
S.Ponnambalam vs Sankaralingam (Died) **
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
S.A.No.670 of 2000
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.03.2021
DELIVERED ON: 31.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
S.A.No.670 of 2000
and
Cross Appeal (MD) No.5 of 2010
S.A.No.670 of 2000
S.Ponnambalam ..Appellant /Appellant /Plaintiff
Vs.
Sankaralingam (died) **
1.Velusamy **
** 1st respondent substituted in the place of deceased
first respondent, Sankaralingam, vide court order,
dated 24.01.2020 made in CMP.No.3885 of 2019.
2.Anbu ..Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
(Respondents 1 and 2 represent for themselves and
on behalf of Harijans in Melakarai Hamlet Village of
Chartamputhukulam)
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.670 of 2000
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No.21 of 1998 on
the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, dated
12.11.1999 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.913
of 1993 dated 12.01.1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif
Court, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For M/s.J.Antony Jesus
For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Mr.R.Nandakumar
Cross Appeal (MD) No.5 of 2010
Sankaralingam (died) **
1.Velusamy **
**1st Cross Appellant substituted in the place of deceased
Cross Appellant, Sankaralingam (died), vide court order,
dated 24.01.2020, made in CMP.No.3886 of 2019.
2.Anbu @ Anbalagan ..Cross Appellants/Respondents
( Cross Appellants represent for themselves and
on behalf of Harijans in Melakarai Hamlet Village of
Chartamputhukulam)
Vs.
S.Ponnambalam ..Respondent/Appellant
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.670 of 2000
Prayer in Cross Appeal (MD) No.5 of 2010 : Cross Appeal is filed
under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and
Decree passed in A.S. No.21 of 1998 on the file of the Additional
Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, dated 12.11.1999, confirming the
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.913 of 1993 dated 12.01.1998 on
the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
For Cross Appellants :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Mr.R.Nandakumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For M/s.J.Antony Jesus
COMMON JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction, the present second appeal came to be filed.
2.The cross appeal is also filed by the respondents against the findings of the First Appellate Court that the respondents have not proved the customary right over the suit property and also against the findings of the First Appellate Court for deciding the title of the plaintiff. 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as their own ranking as before the Trial Court.
4.The brief facts, leading to filing of the second appeal, are as follows :
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The land was allotted to the plaintiff in partition, originally belonged to his father. Thereafter, the plaintiff has started a small scale industry for manufacturing stencil papers in the suit property and availed the loan and also created equitable mortgage over the suit property. However, as the business is not picked up, the bank took action against the property for sale of the property.
4(i) When the matter stood thus, a year back, the defendants tried to take forcible possession. The defendants are the group of people residing in Melakarai Hamlet, trying to take forcible possession of the suit property and use it as a burial ground. They also sought the Tahsildar for acquisition of the land. However, the stand has been negatived. On 17.11.1993, the defendants have in utter violation of the 4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 law and order, forcibly entered into the suit property for the purpose of bringing the dead body of their community. However, the same was prevented by the plaintiff. In spite of the protest by the plaintiff, the defendants, have done the above injury to the plaintiff, by bringing the dead body to the land. The defendants have also threatened that they would continue to bury the dead bodies in future also into the same lands. Hence, the suit.
5.The defendants denied that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and he has put up factory premises in the schedule property, in the year, 1974. It is the contention that the suit schedule property is a burial ground for the Villagers of Chatrampudukulam Village, for more than a century and the property has been used as a burial ground from time immemorial. There are several burials in the schedule lands. The allegation that the defendants have made a forcible entry, in the year, 1974, is also not correct. Hence, it is the contention that as per the village custom, the dead bodies are buried in the schedule property. The villagers of Chatrampudukulam Melakkarai are all in enjoyment of the portion of the schedule property as their burial 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 ground from the time immemorial. The villagers are also entitled to the schedule lands by custom and thereby, the villagers have also acquired the right of 'customary right' over the portion of the schedule lands by using the lands as a burial ground from time immemorial.
6.Based on the above pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues :
1) Whether the suit property is in exclusive possession of the plaintiff ?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction ?
3) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled ?
7. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to Exs.A.16 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and no documents were marked. Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 were also marked.
8. The Trial court has accepted that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. He has also put up small scale factory, which is in a 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 dilapidated condition and dismissed the suit, mainly on the ground that the plaintiff himself has admitted in the evidence that in one portion of the suit properties, the graves were found and it has been used as “Mayanam” and therefore, dismissed the suit and held that the entire property was not in possession of the plaintiff and also held that the defendants have also acquired the right of customary right over the suit properties.
9.The First Appellate Court, however, held that the plea of the customary right has not been established by the defendants and while upholding the title of the plaintiff in the suit property, confirmed the dismissal of the suit on the ground that since in one portion of the properties, graves were found and used as a burial ground, dismissed the appeal. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.
10.While admitting this second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration :
1) Whether the findings of the Courts below regarding 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 possession and enjoyment of the suit property are vitiated by its erroneous consideration of the report of the Advocate Commissioner in Ex.C.1 especially when the Lower Appellate Court accepted the title of the Appellant on the basis of documentary evidence ?
2) Whether the Courts below is right in holding that the Appellant is not in possession of the suit property after having found that the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 cannot be accepted and the use of the land as a burial ground is only a portion of the suit property and that too on the basis of the Commissioner's Report which is inadmissible in evidence ?
3) Whether the Courts below is right in dismissing the suit after having found that the respondents failed to establish the claim of customary right for using the land as a burial ground ?
11. The Cross Appeal is filed by the defendants against the findings of the Courts below, rejecting the plea of the customary right. 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the Courts below having accepted the title of the plaintiff. Merely because the defendants have encroached certain portion of the property and buried few bodies and it does not mean that the entire property was used as a “Mayanam”. Hence, it is the contention that the title in respect of the entire property vest in favour of the plaintiff. The Commissioner Report filed before the Trial court also clearly shows that only in the portion adjacent to the pond, some encroachments were made by the villagers. Now, taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit, the defendants' villagers are taking advantage of their caste are trying to encroach upon the properties frequently that itself cannot be a ground to dismiss the suit. What has to be seen for granting injunction is the possession of the property on the date of the suit.
13. The Commissioner Report filed before the Trial court shows that only in a small portion of the southern west corner, there were some bodies found. Therefore, the Courts below ought to have granted injunction in respect of the other areas, even leaving the small portion 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 identified by the Commissioner in Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. Hence, it is the contention that a separate burial ground has been allotted to the villagers, it could be seen under Ex.A.13 the field map of the Village. To prove that the suit property all along used as a burial ground, there is no evidence whatsoever on record.
14.It is the contention that the suit property is situated in Tirunelveli, within the jurisdiction of the then Municipality and if really the suit property was converted as “Mayanam” and used as a burial ground, the same should have been done only with the permission of the Municipality, which has not been done so. Hence, it is the contention that merely some few bodies have been buried in one portion of the area, spanning about 20 cents, at the time of evidence, the defendant cannot take advantage of the same and contend that the entire properties belonged to them and used as a burial ground from the time immemorial.
15. Hence, it is the contention that the appellant is ready to give up the portion already encroached by the defendants and at least the remaining areas to be protected by way of injunction, since the title has 10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 been clearly established. It is the contention that merely because the title has been incidentally gone into by the First Appellate Court, the defendants have no right to disputing the title. No scrap of paper has been filed to show that either the defendant or the Government has title to the property. Whereas, all the documents filed by the plaintiff clearly established that the title is in favour of the plaintiff.
16. The alleged custom pleaded by the defendants have also not been established. The First Appellate Court has rightly held that the plea of custom raised by the defendants has not been established. Hence, it is the contention that even the Commissioner appointed by this Court found that only a portion of the area had been encroached and not the entire suit property. Though the Commissioner has found several graves other than the encroached areas, this has been done after the dismissal of the suit by encroaching every time. Hence, it is the contention that such encroachments cannot be encouraged and the same has to be put to an end by granting a decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, it is the contention that the Court can even protect the remaining area shown other than the encroached portion shown in the Commissioner 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 Report filed before this Court and hence, prayed for allowing the Second Appeal.
17. In support of his submissions, he has also relied on the following judgments :
1) 2008 (4) SCC 584 - Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs. and others
2) 1980 AIR Madras - 212 - M.Manohara Chetty and others Vs. C.Coomaraswamy Naidu and Sons
3) 2000 (3) MLJ 199 - Boramma Vs. Krishna Gowda and Others
18.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents / Villagers submitted that the Commissioner Report clearly shows that the entire suit property has been used as a graveyard. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property any time as alleged by the plaintiff. When the suit property was used as a graveyard from time immemorial, such right has been acquired by way of custom. The evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 would also show that they have been burying the bodies in the 12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 suit properties for many years. Hence, the dismissal of the suit for bare injunction by the Courts below, does not require any interference by this Court. It is also submitted that the long usage is also established and the long usage as a burial ground has also been proved. So, the finding of the First Appellate Court holding that the custom and usage not established, is not correct and hence, prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal and by allowing the Cross Appeal.
19. He also relied upon the following judgments reported in
(i) 2019 5 MLJ 52 - Ranjith Kumar Vs. P.E. Jambulingam (deceased) and
(ii) AIR 2007 SC 900 - Ramji Rai Vs. Jagdish Mathah
20. I have perused the entire records.
21. The suit has been laid for permanent injunction. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to him and he traces title on the basis of family arrangement - Ex.A.1. 13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 Thereafter, he started a business for manufacturing stencil papers and put up small scale factory in the property by mortgaging the property with the bank. The bank also initiated the proceedings. Hence, it is the contention that the suit property absolutely belonged to him, from the year 1993 onwards, the defendants were trying to encroach upon the suit property and brought the dead body to bury the same and to convert the same as a burial ground. Hence, the suit.
22. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court analysed the documents and in fact, the First Appellate Court has incidentally gone into the issue of the title and completely analysed the documents - Exs.A.1 to Exs.A.16. The First Appellate Court, in fact, considered various documents - Ex.A.10, Ex.A.11, Ex.A.12 and Ex.A.7 previous partition deed, dated 07.12.1925, Ex.A.8 sale deed, dated 15.02.1945, Ex.A.9 partition deed, dated 19.11.1954 and Ex.A.14 the partition deed between Sankara Pillai vakaiyara and others, Ex.A.15 and Ex.A.16 Adangal. Ex.A.13 - Resurvey map and Ex.A.3 patta pass book issued in favour of the plaintiff and found that the title is vested with the plaintiff. 14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000
23. The First Appellate Court has analysed the documents and incidentally decided the title, as the defendants disputed the title, such a finding cannot be faulted. It is to be noted that it is not the case of the defendants that they have perfected title over the suit property by adverse possession or it is not their contention that the property do not belong to the plaintiff’s family and belongs to some other person. No scrap of papers has been filed to show that the plaintiff has no right or title over the suit property. On the other hand, the plaintiff's side documents clearly established the fact that the title is vested with the plaintiff’s family from the very inception. Thereafter, in the family arrangements, the property came to the plaintiff and he has exercised the control over the suit property by mortgaging the same to the bank and also put up a small scale factory, which is in a dilapidated condition as per Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. Therefore, the Cross Objector contention that the First Appellate Court should not have decided the title, has no legs to stand. In a suit for bare injunction, merely because title issue was decided incidentally, such finding cannot be questioned by other side who have no title to the property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit property and the defendants being in the 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 large number of persons residing in the adjacent Village of the suit property, taking advantage of the number, they are trying to encroach upon the suit property from the year 1993. Though it is pleaded by the defendants that the entire suit property was used as “Mayanam” from time immemorial, the very statement of the defendants when carefully seen in the written statement, it is stated in paragraph No.10, it is clearly pleaded by the defendants that the Villagers of the Chatrampudukkulam Melakarai are in enjoyment of the portion of the suit schedule property. Though in general, it is claimed that the entire property is used as a burial ground in paragraph No.10, it is clearly pleaded by the defendants that they are in enjoyment of portion of the schedule mentioned suit property as their burial ground for time immemorial. The boundaries of the suit properties are also relevant to be noted :
South and West are the Oodaiporomboke.
24.Except oral evidence by the defendants that the suit properties have been used as a burial ground, no other document whatsoever has been filed. Whereas Ex.A.13 - Village Plan makes it 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 clear that separate burial ground has been allotted to the Villagers by the Government in Survey Nos.613 and 703 and Survey numbers 613 and 703 were shown as a burial ground for the above Villagers. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the properties have been used as a burial ground from time immemorial, cannot be countenanced. The boundaries referred to above, when seen with the admission of the defendants in paragraph No.10 with Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2, the same makes it very clear that in fact, the defendants have encroached certain area, namely, the south west corner, near the pond and buried certain few bodies just prior to the suit. P.W.1 also admitted in his evidence that in a smaller portion, certain bodies are buried. Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 the Commissioner report filed before the Trial court also makes it very clear that the plaintiff’s shed is also found in the suit property in a dilapidated condition. The sketch filed by the Commissioner shows that near the pond towards south west, the area has been encroached by the defendants and certain graves have been found. In fact, P.W.1 also admitted that in a small portion, such graves were found. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire property has been used as a graveyard by the defendants. 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000
25.This Court, also to ascertain the nature of the graves found in the suit property, adjacent to the Oodai, appointed a Commissioner. The Commissioner has filed a report along with three sketches. The Commissioner Report has also indicated that the graves were found in largest concentration in the south-west and north-west portions. The graves are all in the forms of earth mounds. Except a few graves, most are not particularly visible to lay a person unless specifically pointed out. It is also found that recent burial is also found within the last few months. The Commissioner report indicates that the graves are found only in south-west and north-west portions. Though some graves are extended to the western portion of the suit property, it appears to be the recent encroachments. In fact, his report clearly tally with Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 originally filed before the trial court, during the pendency of the suit, in the year, 1994 itself. From both the Commissioner Reports, it can be easily seen that the bodies have been buried at the border of the pond i.e. south-west corner of the suit property, which according to the present Commissioner, comes around 55 cents shown in the sketch No.3 namely, south-west, north-west and south-east and north-east, measuring 2250 square metres i.e. 24,218 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 square feet (55 cents). The graves have been found only in these areas and in fact, though the small extent has been shown in the year 1994, at the time of Commissioner Report, predominantly, the encroachment has been made near the pond, just adjacent to the pond, since that area is a water lagging area as per the Commissioner Report now filed before this Court. The plan attached with Commissioner Report and the sketches filed before this Court are prepared with the help of the Surveyor and ‘A’ Register extract is also filed during UDR Survey. Town Survey Register, Survey Number Block Map, FMB sketch for survey No.723 were also filed. These Revenue documents are also show that the ownership vests with the plaintiff. Therefore, when the encroachment has been made to the tune of 55 cents and the remaining area has not been used as graveyard and the area has not been notified or declared as a burial ground, the defendants cannot be allowed to perpetuate the encroachments on the ground of customary right to make ingress into the private properties and claim a right as a matter of right.
26. Even in the year 1991, under Ex.A.6 the Government has rejected this land required to use as a burial ground. As per Ex.A.13 the 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 Government has allotted two separate survey numbers with larger extent, for a specific burial ground. Merely because some encroachment has been made for some time in one portion of the property, the defendants cannot claim as a matter of right over the private properties. If such attitude of the persons or a group of persons is allowed on the ground some encroachments made by them to claim the remaining entire property, the very right of the citizens to hold the property would be defeated, which is the Constitutional Right. Therefore, this Court is of the view that as the Courts below found that the plaintiff has established his title, though he has admitted that small portion was encroached by the defendants, the same would not be license to the defendants to encroach upon the entire extent in the suit property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that having regard to the Reports filed by the Commissioner one before the Trial court and another before this Court, at the most, the plaintiff's claim for injunction to be negatived, only in respect of 55 cents, on the south-west, north-west and north-east and south-east, more fully shown in the sketch No.3 of the Commissioner Report filed before this Court. The suit property is an extent of 3 acres and 42 cents. Admittedly, the title is vested with the plaintiff, except small 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 encroachments on the western side and the remaining extent other than the properties is shown in the yellow, in the sketch No.1. The plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, since the title is vested with him. Admittedly, now the suit properties are vacant lands.
27. In Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs. and Others reported in 2008 (4) SCC 584, the Hon’ble Apex Court, has held in Paragraph No.14 as follows :
"14. But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs."
28. Since the title has been established clearly and no other documents have been filed by the defendants and some other properties are earmarked as “Mayanam” - the burial ground under Ex.A.3 by the Government, the customary right has not been established for the entire property. The very pleading of the defendants themselves would show that the only portion of the property is used as “Mayanam” i.e. graveyard. Therefore, the plaintiff is certainly entitled for injunction for the remaining extent. The defendants being a neighbor Villagers, they are more in number and also belonged to one particular Community, they cannot take advantage of the encroachment already made by them, to deprive the right of the plaintiff in the suit properties. Therefore, when the Government itself declared that the other area is a burial ground for the Villagers, the defendants' claim for customary rights cannot be 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 accepted, merely on the basis of some encroachments made nearby the pond area, to an extent of 55 cents by passage of time.
29. It is also to be noted that if really the area is used as a burial ground, necessary licence ought to have been obtained under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, as per Sections 278 and
279. Section 279 of the said Act, prohibits, opening of the new place for disposal of the dead body, whether public or private, unless a license has been obtained from the council on application. Whereas no such permission whatsoever has been obtained by the defendants. Therefore, the customary right claimed by the defendants has to fail. In fact, without any such licence, the persons are prohibited to bury any corpus. Hence, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as the title is established in favour of the plaintiff, merely because some encroachments have been made and certain few bodies have been buried in that area by the Villagers, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has lost the right in the entire property. The suit property is an extent of 3 acres and 42 cents. The Commissioner Report clearly shows that the encroachments have been made predominantly near the pond, the water 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 lagging area. Now, this Court is also with the help of the Commissioner identified to an extent of 55 cents. The plaintiff is also ready to give up that area, as the title has been established in respect of the property. Since the property is a vacant land, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the possession has to follow the title.
30. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments reported in 2019 5 MLJ 52 in Ranjith Kumar Vs. P.E. Jambulingam (deceased) and in AIR 2007 SC 900 in Ramji Rai Vs. Jagdish Mathah. Absolutely there is no dispute over the title and ownership, the plaintiff is in possession of the property on the date of the suit. However, the fact remains that the present suit property is a vacant land, which is not in dispute. The title is also established in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, other than the portion of the encroached area, for the remaining area, the plaintiff being the title owner, is certainly entitled to protect the area, since the possession follows title.
31. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the defendants cannot take the law in their own hands to take away the 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000 Constitutional Right of the plaintiff to hold the property. Even the Government is not willing to acquire those properties.
32.In such view of the matter, merely because the defendants are large in number in that particular area, they cannot take the law in their own hands to encroach upon the private property, just because some encroachments were made by them earlier. In such view of the matter, except 55 cents shown in the third sketch of the Commissioner Report filed before this Court, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to the remaining vacant area in respect of title that has been already established. Accordingly, all the substantial questions of law are answered.
33.Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed in part. Decree is granted for permanent injunction, in respect of the suit property other than the 55 cents, namely, four quadrants shown in sketch No.3 south-west, north-west and south-east and north-east, measuring 2250 square metres, i.e., 24,218 square feet (55 cents). The Commissioner Report and Sketch shall form part of the decree and judgment. 25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.670 of 2000
34. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed in part as above and consequently, the Cross Appeal is dismissed. The decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court with regard to the incident finding of the title, is confirmed. No costs.
31.03.2021.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
rm
26/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.670 of 2000
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Court,
Tirunelveli,
2.The Principal District Munsif Court,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
27/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.670 of 2000
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rm
Common Judgment in
S.A.No.670 of 2000
and
Cross Appeal (MD) No.5 of 2010
31.03.2021
28/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/