Madras High Court
Chockalingam(Died) vs Natarajan
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
S.A.No.433 of 1999
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 07.12.2021
DELIVERED ON : 13.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
S.A.No.433 of 1999
Chockalingam(Died) ... Appellant/
Appellant/Plaintiff
1.C.Vasantha
2.C.Sathish Kumar
3.C.Saraladevi
4.C.Sasikumar
5.C.Chandrakumar ...proposed appellants
(Appellants 1 to 5 brought as legal heirs of
deceased sole appellant vide Court, dated
20.01.2016 made in M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3
of 2015 in S.A.No.433 of 1999)
Vs.
1.Natarajan
2.Nevvisathan
3.Sathammal
4.Sathayya
5.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by District Collector,
Madurai.
6.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms,
Madurai. ... Respondents/
Respondents/Defendants
7.Chinna Eluvi
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.433 of 1999
8.Nachammal
9.Vellaiammal
10.Chinna Karuppan
11.Chinna Pottu
12.N.Thenamnika
13.N.Gunapriya
14.N.Palanivasan ...Proposed respondents
(Respondent 7 to 14 are brought on record as legal
heirs of the deceased respondents 2 and 3, vide Court
order dated 18.11.2021, made in C.M.P.Nos.14505
and 14506 of 2003 in S.A.No.433 of 1999.)
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.76 of 1994 on the
file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, dated 28.02.1997 by confirming the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.146 of 1992 on the file of District
Munsif, Melur, datd 23.12.1993.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Kadarkarai
Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Babu Rajendran
for Mr.M.R.Murugesan
for R1 to R4.
Mr.G.Sivaraja
Government Advocate
for R5 and R6.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.433 of 1999
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant herein.
2. The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.146 of 1992 before the District Munsif Court, Melur, for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, he filed A.S.No.76 of 1994 before Principal Sub-Court, Madurai. This appeal was also dismissed. As against the concurrent findings, this present second appeal has been filed.
3. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule property is having an extent of 1 acre 6 cents in S.No.188/1B. The said Survey Number is having a total extent of 6 acre 28 cents. According to the plaintiff, his vendor Vaiyapuri was assigned an extent of 1 acre 20 cents out of 6 acre 28 cents in S.No.188/1B on 06.01.1976. According to the plaintiff, he purchased 40 cents from said Vaiyapuri under Exhibit A.2, 20 cents under Exhibit A.3 another 40 cents under Exhibit A.4 and 6 cents under Exhibit A.5. Hence, the plaintiff claimed that he has purchased 1 acre 6 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999 cents. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and he has put up coconut saplings and he is irrigating the same. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants were assigned different properties by the Government and they are attempting to grab the property allotted to his vendor Vaiyapuri. The plaintiff further contended that the authorities have cancelled the assignment in his favour and re-allotted the said property in favour of the defendants 1 to 4. This order has been passed without conducting an enquiry. Hence, the cancellation is void and bad in the eye of law. The plaintiff further contended that based upon the void order, the defendants 1 to 4 are attempting to interfere with his possession and hence, the present suit.
4. The defendants filed a written statement contending that originally the suit schedule property along with other properties were owned by one Mahalingam Chettiar. Since his possession exceeded the Land Ceiling Act, the Government has acquired 6 acre 28 cents from him. The surplus lands were assigned in favour of 13 persons and one of them is the vendor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's vendor Vaiyapuri was assigned 1 acre 20 cents in 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999 S.No.188/1. The said assignment is a conditional assignment, on the condition that he should not alienate the said properties. Further the assignee should pay Rs.215 every year for a period of 19 years. The defendants further contended that the said Vaiyapuri paid only one installment and he has not paid the balance installments. The defendants further contended that even before the expiry of 10 years period, the said Vaiyapuri had alienated the properties in favour of the plaintiff.
5. The defendants further contended that after issuing notice to the plaintiff's vendor, under Exhibit B.23, the assignment was cancelled under Exibit B.12. The defendants further contended that a fresh assignment for the suit schedule properties was granted in favour of the 4 th defendant under Exhibit B.16. In view of the said facts, the defendants contended that the plaintiff does not have any title or possession over the suit schedule properties and not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for by him.
6. The trial Court found that the plaintiff's vendor has lost title to the suit schedule properties, in view of the fact that he has violated the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999 condition imposed in the order of assignment. The trial Court further found that the plaintiff's vendor has not challenged the order of cancellation of assignment before the land reforms tribunal and the order has become final. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that when the title in favour of the vendor has been cancelled by the authorities, the plaintiff does not derive title. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to the effect that the coconut saplings were damaged by the defendants. The trial Court also relied upon the commissioner's report to arrive at a conclusion that there is no evidence or proof of availability of any crops or damage to the said crops in the suit schedule properties. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
7. The First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal after arriving at a finding that once the assignment has been cancelled, the possession becomes illegal and the possession of the plaintiff, if any would be deemed to be a trespass and he cannot go before the jurisdiction of the Civil Court seeking permanent injunction. As against the said concurrent findings, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.
6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999
8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff has purchased the properties under Exhibits A.2, A.4 and A.5. All these purchases were made by him prior to the order of cancellation of assignment. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that without issuing any notice to the plaintiff, the order of cancellation has been passed and hence, the same is not valid. He further contended that some of the Exhibits A.3, A.4 and A.5 sale deeds have been effected after completion of 10 years period and hence, they are not in contravention of the original allotment order. Hence, the cancellation under Exhibit B.12 is invalid. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and hence, this suit have been decreed as prayed for.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the assignment was granted with several conditions and one of the conditions is payment of Rs.215 per year for a period of 19 years. Admittedly, the sale in favour of the plaintiffs have been effected without 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999 payment of all the installments. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that proper notice has been issued to the plaintiff's vendor under Exhibit B.23 and after conducting an enquiry, the assignment order was cancelled under Exhibit B.12. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the second appeal.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side.
11. Admittedly, the suit schedule property was assigned in favour of one Vaiyapuri on 06.01.1976 with a condition that he should not alienate the properties within a period of 10 years and every year he should pay a sum of Rs.215 for another 19 years. The said Vaiyapuri has effected as sale under Exhibit A.2 on 14.09.1984, admittedly within a period of 10 years. The rest of the sale deeds have been executed under Exhibits A.3 to A.5. But, the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved about the payment of yearly installment of Rs.215 per year for a period of 19 years. The specific contention of the authorities is that the plaintiff's vendor has not paid the installments. Hence, as per the condition found in the assignment order, the original assignee, namely, Vaiyapuri, is not entitled to alienate the suit 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999 schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. But the said assignee has chosen to alienate the properties in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibits A.2 to A.5. Hence, the sale deeds are nothing but void documents and will not confer any title upon the plaintiffs.
12. The plaintiff had further contended that he is in a possession of the suit schedule properties by planting coconut saplings and the said saplings have been damaged by the defendants 1 to 4 herein. The Commissioner's report clearly indicates that there is no such saplings in the suit schedule properties and hence, the plaintiff has failed to prove about his possession over the suit schedule properties. That apart, the sale deed in his favour is a void document and the plaintiff is not legally entitled to be possession of the suit schedule properties. The cancellation of the assignment has been effected only after issuing notice to the vendor of the plaintiff and hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the cancellation order under Exhibit B.12 is void, is not legally sustainable.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further contended 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999 that he has purchased the property from an ostensible owner and his title and possession should be protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The assignment order dated, 06.01.1976, clearly indicates that the original assignee should not alienate the property within a period of 10 years and he should pay a sum of Rs.215 every year for a period of 19 years. The plaintiff has purchased a portion of the suit schedule properties under Exhibit A.2 even before the expiry of 10 years period. The remaining extent of property has been purchased by the plaintiff even without verifying the fact whether the original assignee has paid the annual installments. Hence, the plaintiff has not acted in good faith or taken reasonable care whether the transferrer had power to transfer. That apart, the suit schedule property was assigned by the Government in favour of the plaintiff's vendor. The assignments are governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895. As per Section 2 of the said Act, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable to the Government grants. So, viewed from any angle, the contention of the plaintiff that he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration from an ostensible owner is not legally sustainable. 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999
14. In view of the above discussions, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are confirmed and the second appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.
13.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned. To
1.The Principal Sub-Court, Madurai
2.The District Munsif Court, Melur
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.433 of 1999 R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg Pre-delivery Judgment made in S.A.No.433 of 1999 13.12.2021 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis