Madras High Court
Elizabeth Basker vs The District Collector on 27 March, 2024
A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
A.S(MD)No.25 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.1470 of 2023 and 14145 of 2023
Elizabeth Basker ... Appellant/Plaintiff
-vs-
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Nagercoil.
2. The Tahsildar,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil. ... Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 and 2
of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated
15.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District
Court (Fast Track), Nagercoil.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram
For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
This appeal suit has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track), Nagercoil, wherein, the appellant herein has filed a suit for the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction, recovery of possession over the plaint schedule property and also to declare that the claim of the defendants that the plaint schedule property is an encroachment and the decision of the 2nd defendant ordering eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property is illegal and unsustainable and the trial Court has dismissed the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the trial Court.
3. The brief averments made in the plaint filed by the plaintiff before the Execution Court are as follows:
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 The plaint schedule property of 33 cents and 333 square links equivalent to 1348.987 square meter of land comprised in Resurvey No.713/3 of Kaniyakulam Village originally belonged to one Ramaswamy Iyer. The said Ramaswamy Iyer sold the property to one Micheal Rani, through sale deed dated 02.11.1973. After purchase of the property, the said Micheal Rani in her favour effected mutation in respect of the above property and obtained patta and paid revenue tax to the Government. The plaintiff had purchased the property from the said Micheal Rani through sale deed dated 13.03.2008 and she also obtained patta and paid tax to the Government. After purchase of the property, the plaintiff applied for issuance of possession certificate in respect of plaint schedule property before the Village Administrative Office and after pursuing the revenue records, the Village Administrative Officer has issued possession certificate in favour of the plaintiff on 14.10.2008. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for approval of building plan from the Panchayat and the panchayat has also approved the building plan. Thereafter, the plaintiff also applied for water connection, electricity connection in the suit property.
3.1. While so, the regional Deputy Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District caused notice to the plaintiff, wherein it was alleged 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 that this plaintiff was given with a “ B” Memo No.20/1425 in respect of 0.110 are of land at Resurvey No.713/3 (Amended as per order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019, dated 19.07.2019) of Kaniyakulam Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk and through the said proceeding he sought to cancel the said “ B” Memo.
Further the revenue authorities malafidely camouflaged the survey number, as if the plaintiff is in possession land in Resurvey No.713/3. However, the plaintiff was never favoured with any “ B” Memo in respect of survey No. 713/3 as mentioned in the notice and description mentioned in it. According to the plaintiff neither there was any “B” Memo proceedings initiated nor the plaintiff ever trespassed or occupied any Government Poramboke Land as alleged to be available in Resurvey No.713/3. To that effect, the plaintiff also filed writ petition in W.P.(MDNo.9233 of 2017 before this Court and the same was allowed, setting aside the notice and directed the Government Authorities to pass fresh orders after issuing proper notice and hearing. After the above order, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar issued fresh notice dated 16.06.2017 and to the above notice, the plaintiff has given a detailed reply along with 30 documents, but the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar without any application of mind brushed aside the written submission of the plaintiff, holding that none of the documents related to Resurvey No.713/3 and sought to evict the plaintiff 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 from the Resurvey No.715/1E1 through his order dated 21.08.2017. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil. In the said appeal the plaintiff has raised that the failure of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar to give a finding as to the property in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff by comparing the boundary recital and further failure of Zonal Deputy Thasildar to provide any opportunity and also demonstrated that the property is an individual property and not a poramboke land as held by Zonal Tahsildar in this impugned order.
3.2. The appellant preferred the above appeal on 12.09.2017 but even the Tahsildar, Agasteeswarm Taluk, while dismissing the appeal on 23.11.2017 held that as per settlement “ A” register of the year 1979 the Resurvey No.713/3 has been shown as poramboke land and as the appellant has failed to question the same within the time frame, as the above land is acquired for Government purpose, thereby he is deprived of filing the above appeal. Therefore, holding that the suit for the relief of declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction and also to declare that the claim of the defendants that the plaint schedule property is an encroachment and the decision of the 2 nd defendant ordering eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 by the plaintiff is illegal and unsustainable. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the Suit.
4. The gist of the written statement of the second defendant and adopted by the first defendant are as follows:
The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff had filed the suit in order to grab the property belongs to the Government. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar created under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. There is no property available as mentioned in the plaint and the four boundaries mentioned in the plaint are not correct. The Resurvey No.713/3 is a Tharisu Poramboke land. The documents submitted by the plaintiff are relating to the properties of the plaintiff in S.F.No.715/1E1. The property in S.F.No.713/3 was requested to be awarded to the police department and thereby a proposal was sent for the opinion of Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram. At the time of inspection, they came to know that “B” Memo was issued in favour of the plaintiff and the same was occupied by the plaintiff. The said Memo was cancelled on 21.04.2017. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff filed a Writ 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 Petition in W.P.(MD) No.9233 of 2017 before this Court and the same was set aside by directing issuance of fresh notice within eight weeks and to pass fresh order after enquiry. Accordingly, order was passed by the Deputy Tahsildar and the same was challenged through appeal preferred by the plaintiff on 12.09.2017 and the same was also dismissed on 23.11.2017 by the appellate authority. The plaintiff has no right over the property in R.S.No. 713/3 and in respect of Resurvey No.715/1E1 the defendants have not taken any steps and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. There is no cause of action for filing the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The gist of the additional written statement of the second defendant and adopted by the first defendant are as follows:
Already the plaintiff had filed the suit in respect of S.F.No.715/1. Now the plaintiff has amended the suit property as one of the property in R.S.No. 713/3 is a Poramboke land and in the revenue records the property is classified as “Tharisu” and it belongs to Government. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration and other reliefs. The defendants have passed order in accordance with law. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023
6. Based on the above said pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues:
1. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act?
2. Whether the description of the plaint schedule property is correct?
3. Whether the suit is barred by the doctrine of estopped?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the reliefs of declarations as prayed for?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of consequential injunction as prayed for?
6. To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled to get?
7. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff no witness was examined and no documents were marked. On the side of the defendants, no witness was examined and documents Exs.D1 to Ex. D6 were marked and they also marked Exs.C.1 and Ex.C2. The trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue that the suit is barred by Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.
8/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023
8. As against the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
1. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is against law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The trial Court ought not to have decided the case on preliminary issue on the sole ground that, the suit is filed for declaration and for other reliefs.
3. The trial Court ought to have considered that, the appellant herein is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff has perfected title to the suit property by means of long, continuous and open enjoyment for more than 30 days.
4. The trial Court failed to appreciate Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in right perspective and ought not to have decided by a summary proceedings. The original suit filed only for the relief of declaration not challenging any proceedings passed by the respondents herein.
5. The trial Court ought to have considered the patta stands in the name of the appellant which have more weightage than the “ A” register.
6. The trial Court ought to have considered the 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 case of the appellant along with the document produced by him, but omitting the same is a non-
consideration and the judgment and decree of the court below is liable to be set aside.
7. When there is a dispute in survey number is a fit case for trial in order to find out the real lis involved for the interest of substantial justice.
8. The court below ought to have considered the revenue tax receipts produced by the appellant in various fasali years and all of a sudden, the respondent herein cannot change the classification of the land, and even the same is existence for more than a statutory period.
9. The legal bar contemplated as per Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 has been over looked by the trial Court.
10. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside.
9. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has filed petition to receive the additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023
10. The brief averments in the petition are as follows:
Originally the suit schedule property belongs to the petitioner/ appellant. He constructed a building in the suit property and obtained electricity connection to the building. The petitioner/appellant had filed the original suit for the relief of declaration and also for recovery of possession before the trial Court. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features to identify the property in S.F.No.713/3 and thereafter, he amended the Survey number of the property. The suit was dismissed on the ground that R.S.No.713/3 is poramboke land and the plaint averments are all related to resurvey No.715/1E1. Now, the petitioner is able to produce correlation certificate of Old Survey No. 3517/3-1 is equal to R.S. 713/3 and moreover, all other sub divisions of R.S.No.713 are patta lands and only 713/3 is notified as poramboke land. Therefore, the petition mentioned documents are essential to decide the appeal.
11. The brief averments made in the counter filed by the respondents are as follows.
The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner/appellant has not satisfied the claim 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 made under Order 47 Rule 21 of C.P.C. The plaintiff has filed the suit before the trial Court, claiming title for R.S.No.715/1E1 and thereafter amended the plaint for R.S.No.713/3. In the plaint the 1st document number mentioned as 1530 is without any date but in 1 st para of plaint mentioned as document No. 4450/1973 dated 02.11.1973. The document No.14 mentioned in plaint as document No.517 of 2008 dated 13.03.2008 were also not marked on the side of plaintiff. The document No.4, dated 03.01.2023 is highly doubtful that some entries of pen marks were erased and for single old Survey No.3517 were correlated with 21 new survey numbers. Except document No.4, all the documents were available with the plaintiff before filing this suit. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appellant has filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the property. The plaintiff is entitled to the property through a sale deed. The trial Court has not answered all the issues. When the suit is filed for declaration of title over the property, there is no bar under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The plaintiff has not filed the suit as against the order passed by the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Land 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 Encroachment Act and the suit is for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, in respect of the title to the property, the trial Court ought to have answered all the issues even if the suit is barred under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The declaration of title is to be decided by the competent civil Court. But the trial Court failed to consider the same and dismissed the suit on the ground of preliminary issue.
13. The plaintiff also filed a petition in C.M.P(MD)No.14145 of 2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., to receive and mark the additional documents which are explaining the case. As per the revenue records, all other sub divisions of R.S.No.713 are patta lands and only R.S.No.713/3 is notified as poramboke land in resurvey process. The petition mentioned documents are pertaining to Old Survey Number 3517/3-1, for which separate patta was also granted. Therefore, within the four boundaries all are patta land and not porampoke land. Therefore, the above said arguments of the defendants that the appellant has not proved that the above said land is a patta land is not correct. The prayer for declaration of the title of the property is not barred by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. Therefore, 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 the dismissal of the suit by holding that the suit is barred under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act is not valid under law and the trial Court ought to have decided all the issues. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside.
14. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the following judgments:
1. Major S.S.Khanna Vs. Brig F.J.Dillon reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 497.
2. Ramesh B. Desai and others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 638.
15. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that originally the property belonged to the Government as Poramboke land. Already the plaintiff had filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.9233 of 2017 and based on the order passed in the writ petition, after giving opportunity to the appellant order was passed. As against the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar, she filed appeal and the same was also dismissed, confirming that the property is Government 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 poramboke land. Thereafter, eviction proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The suit is barred by Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The plaintiff has not filed any documents to support her claim, however, the defendants produced all the documents to show that the properties belongs to the Government as Poramboke land. The trial Court after hearing both sides, based on the documents, correctly dismissed the suit by holding that the suit is not maintainable and is barred under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The petitioner has filed petition to receive the additional documents and the same were very well available with the plaintiff even before filing the suit and she has filed the documents now without any valid reasons. Therefore, this petition filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed and the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
16. In support of his contention, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon the following judgments:
1. Ranjene Venkatraman Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur Collectorate, Tanjore and others reported in CDJ 2017 MHC - 1169
2. Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector, 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 Thiruchirappalli and another Vs.Arohiamerry reported in CDJ 2022 MHC – 3647.
3. V.Pandiammal Vs. the District Collector, Madurai reported in CDJ 2023 MHC-292.
4. N.Kuttalingam and others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil and another reported in CDJ 2008 MHC- 417.
17. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the records, the points for determination in this appeal are:
1. Whether the suit is barred under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act?
2. Whether C.M.P(MD) No.14145 of 2023 is to be allowed or not?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction?
4. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable in law?
5. Whether the appeal is to be allowed or not?
16/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 Point No:1
18. In this case, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction and also to declare that the claim of the defendants that the plaint schedule property is an encroachment and the decision of the 2 nd defendant ordering eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property is illegal and unsustainable. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue by holding that the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. On the side of the appellant/plaintiff no witness was examined and no documents were marked. On the side of the respondents/defendants, no witness was examined but documents Exs.D1 to D6 and also Exs.C.1 and Ex.C.2 were marked.
19. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff other than due process of law and also decree for declaration that the claim of the defendants that the plaint schedule property is an encroachment and the decision of the 2nd 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 defendant ordering eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property is illegal and unsustainable. The defendants taken plea that the suit is barred under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. Further the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon the following judgments:
1. Ranjene Venkatraman Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur Collectorate, Tanjore and others reported in CDJ 2017 MHC - 1169
2. Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector, Thiruchirappalli and another Vs.Arohiamerry reported in CDJ 2022 MHC – 3647.
3. V.Pandiammal Vs. the District Collector, Madurai reported in CDJ 2023 MHC-292.
4. N.Kuttalingam and others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil and another reported in CDJ 2008 MHC- 417.
20. On a careful perusal of those judgements it is clear that there is a specific bar under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905, for the civil Courts for entertaining civil suits challenging the proceedings 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 initiated under the said Act, and there is a duty cash on the Court to take note of specific bar to the jurisdiction of a civil Court, suo moto even if such a question was not raised by the party. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act is as follows:
[14. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts. -
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no order passed or proceeding taken by any officer or authority or the State Government under this Act shall be called in question in any Court, in any suit or application and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority or the State Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act”.
21. From a bare reading of Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act makes it is clear that no order passed or proceeding taken by any Officer or Authority or the State Government under this Act shall be called in question in any Court, in any suit or application and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such Officer or 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 authority or the State Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Court.
22. In the case on hand, the first prayer (a) is in respect of the title of the suit property and the second prayer (b) is regarding the action taken by the concerned authorities. The trial Court has not discussed about both the prayers in respect of suit properties. As far as the first prayer (a) is concerned, since the prayer is with regard to declaration of title over the property, there is no bar under section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. As far as the second prayer (b) is concerned, the bar under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act is applicable but the trial Court has not considered the first prayer and dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have decided all the issues, and failed to consider that no evidence on the side of the appellant was adduced and not even provided opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce oral and documentary evidence and decided the issue. Though the prayer No.2 is barred under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, there is no bar to decide the title of the property and competent Court is civil Court has to decide the entire issue and the suit cannot be dismissed on the preliminary issue. Therefore, the prayer “a” is not 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 barred by Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and the prayer “b” alone is barred by Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. Thus the point is answered.
Point No.2:
23. Before this, Court, the appellant/petitioner has filed the petition to receive additional documents stating that those documents relating to the old survey is equal to R.S.713/3 and moreover, all other sub divisions of R.S.No. 713 are patta lands and only 713/3 is notified as proamboke land. Already this Court has decided that the plaintiff has not been provided opportunity to adduce any oral and documentary evidence and also held that the suit is not barred by Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act in respect of the first prayer and thereby the plaintiff/petitioner is at liberty to file the said documents before the trail Court. Thus the point is answered. Point Nos.3 and 4:
24. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title and the notice issued by the defendants. Already this Court in the previous points decided as far as the prayer in respect of the notice issued by the 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 defendants is concerned, it is barred by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, at the same time, as far as prayer “a” is concerned the Suit is not barred by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The trial Court has not gone into the prayer sought for the relief of plaintiff in respect of declaration of title but the suit has been dismissed on the preliminary issue itself. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have decided all the issues but unfortunately the trial Court has not answered all the issues and based on the preliminary issue dismissed the suit. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the following judgements:
1. Major S.S.Khanna Vs. Brig F.J.Dillon reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 497.
2. Ramesh B. Desai and others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 638.
25. A careful perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that under Order 14 Rule 2 of C.P.C, the jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issue of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issue of law alone, but the code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 fact as preliminary issues. In the case on hand, the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue and not considered the prayer for declaration of title over the suit property and there is a mixed issues of law and fact.
Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court without answering all the issues and has answered only the preliminary issue in respect of jurisdiction is unsustainable. In view of the same, the decree and judgement of the trial Court are liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.
26. This Court, in the previous point answered that the suit is not barred by Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act in respect of prayer “a” in respect of declaration of title over the property and thereby, the trial Court is directed to decide the case afresh by affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and mark documents. Therefore, it is appropriate to remand the case to the trial Court for fresh trial in accordance with law. In view of the above said discussions, it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
27. In the result, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track), Nagercoil, dated 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023 15.11.2022 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after providing opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
27.03.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023
To
1. The Additional District Court (Fast Track),
Nagercoil.
2. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Nagercoil.
3. The Tahsildar,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
4. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).No.25 of 2023
P.DHANABAL,J.
ebsi
A.S(MD)No.25 of 2023
27.03.2024
26/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis