Madras High Court
Ambala Thevar vs Chellammal, Muthuraju Thevar, Ulagu ... on 2 August, 2002
Author: Prabha Sridevan
Bench: Prabha Sridevan
JUDGMENT Prabha Sridevan, J.
1. The plaintiff is the appellant who has failed before the Courts below in his attempt to establish his title and to protect his possession from interference as well as alternative relief of recovery of possession and other reliefs.
2. According to the appellant, the suit property belonged to one Paramandi Muppar and was purchased by his mother Sigappi on 15.4.1949 under Ex.A1. Though in Ex. A1, the reference is to pymash No.271, after the abolition of Inams, the entire suit property was given the Survey No.5/1 and the extent was said to be 3 acres 59 cents. Sigappiammal died two years prior to the suit. According to the appellant, he was in possession of the entire suit property and the suit was filed for the above reliefs not only on behalf of himself but also on behalf of his brothers and sisters.
3. The respondents resisted the suit claim stating that the full details of Survey No.5/1 has not been given. According to them, it is really enjoyed now as three plots. The southern most plot running east-west belonged to Sigappiammal and was in her possession and not the other two plots. A joint patta had been given for Survey No.5/1. This was objected to by the appellant but the objection was rejected. The appellant is only entitled to 1.6 acres viz., the southern most plot of Survey No.5/1 and he is neither entitled to, nor in possession of the remaining areas.
4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the basis of Ex.B.6. The extent of the suit property in Ex.A.1 was described as 3 kurukkams. A controversy arose as to what is meant by 'kurukkam'. According to the appellant, " a kurukkam " measures 1.20 acres and therefore 3 kurukkams would be 3.60 acres which means the entire extent of survey No.5/1. But, on the side of the respondents, it was stated that the village in which the suit property is situated belonged to the old Sivagangai Zamin which is included in Manamadurai district. In these areas, kurukkam is equivalent to 56 cents. In support of this, they relied on Ex.B.6. Ex.B.6 is the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai confirming the order of the Tahsildar in issuing joint patta for Survey No.5/1. Before this authority also, the dispute arose as to what is meant by kurukkam and the Revenue Divisional Officer had referred to a " Pocket Book on Chain on Survey Tables" to come to the conclusion that a kurukkam is 56 cents. Relying on the observation of the Revenue Divisional officer in Ex.B.6, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was only entitled to 1.68 acres and that in the southern most portion in survey No.5/1. Against this, the appeal suit was filed.
5. The Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial court and therefore, the Second Appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit the measurement of kurukkam varies vastly from one place to place in different parts of the State and placed reliance on the extract from Tamil Lexicon where it is stated that kurukkam is a measurement of dry land varying from 3/4 acres to 7 acres. Therefore, the learned counsel would urge that even the minimum extent for a kurukkam according to the Lexicon is 0.75 acres which is more than 0.56 acres which is taken as the basis for calculation by the Courts below. According to the learned counsel, the appellants suffer a loss of nearly 2 acres because of this wrong approach. The learned counsel would submit that if to rely on Ex.B.6, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have been examined and that an extract from the order passed by the Officer cannot be relied on for accepting that as proof of what has been stated therein. C. Doraisami Naidu and others vs. Kanniappa Chetty (in AIR 1931 Madras 487) was cited, where it was held that "a recitation in the order of a President of a Union Board is not admissible under Section 35 or 13 in evidence unless such president has been examined with regard to that recitation". The learned counsel would submit that acceptance of what was stated in Ex.B.6 as gospel truth was contrary to the principles laid down in the Evidence Act. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the Second Appeal should be allowed.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that it was not as if the reference in Ex.B.6, was to the work of a lay man, what was relied was a Pocket Book on Chain Survey Tables. Therefore, this is actually, a book which would give correct details of measurements and the Court below had also correctly placed reliance on it and arrived at the calculation. In any event, it was submitted that the question was one of pure of fact and cannot be interfered in the Second Appeal.
8. For clarification, it is submitted that the suit relies only to the balance area in Survey No.5/1 leaving 1.68 acres regarding which there is no controversy that it belongs to Sigappiammal. This lies to the south of Survey No.5/1. This suit concerns itself with what lies to the north of an extent of 1.91 acres. A xerox copy of Pocket Book on Chain Survey Tables was produced fairly by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is seen from a reading of this, it has been prepared by a Deputy Director of Survey of Madras and revised by an Assistant Director of Madras Survey. It shows the legal land measurements for Madurai and Ramanathapuram Districts correlating kurukkam with acres and cents for dry lands and one kurukkam is shown to be claimed to 56 cents. Ex.B.6 is the Order of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 3.6.1982. The deceased first respondent Alagu Thevar and another prayed for issuance of joint patta and the same was granted on 14.8.1979. Ex. B6 deals with the objection of the appellant to the issuance of patta. The contentions raised in this suit were also raised there and it was submitted even before the authority that one kurukkam is 1.20 acres. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the objections stating that the above manual was " rup ghu;f;fg;gl;lJ. mjp;;y; xU FUf;fk; 0/56 Vf;fu; vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mfnt rpfg;gpmk;khs; fpuak; bgw;Ws;s 3 Fuf;fk; (3 X 56) 1/68 Vf;fh; epyk; mtuJ fpuag;gj;jpuj;jpd; go g[y vz; 5-1d; bjd;g[wk; MFk;;/". Ex.B.6 alone may not be sufficient to dislodge the appellant's case, unless supported by other evidence.
9. The judgment of the Appellate Court at Para 8 deals with this question. From Ex.B.6, it is observed that Sigappiammal only purchased 1.69 acres and also that Ex.C2, the Commissioner's report would show that the appellant was in possession of 1.87 acres and therefore there was no basis for holding that the appellant was entitled to 3.56 acres or that 3 kurukkams would be equivalent to 3.56 acres. Apart from this, the Appellate Court has taken pains to identify the four boundaries of the suit property to decide the issue. The northern boundary in all the prior title deeds has been noted and it is the Punja land belonging to Muthurulappa Muppar. Then the Appellate Court has also considered the possibility of Sigappiammal purchasing the entire 3.58 acres and after correlating the boundaries to the property has found why Sigappiammal could not have purchased 3.58 acres. Therefore, though the Prabha Sridevan, J.
objection raised by the learned counsel is with regard to the binding nature of Ex.B.6, the issue has been decided also by ascertaining the four boundaries of the properties by referring to the various sale deeds marked as exhibits to show why Sigappiammal could not have purchased 3.58 acres. Therefore, the appellant who claims from her is not entitled to anything more. It becomes purely a question of fact. Therefore, it cannot be interfered with. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. NO.14291 of 1991 is closed.