Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. According to the learned senior counsel, it is the admitted case of the parties that the entire suit properties falls under the category of grama natham. As far as natham is concerned, the first occupier of the land is the owner of the land. The plaintiff's possession is admitted by the defendants in their written statement. It is also submitted that since her vendor Palaniandi was the first occupier he had no parent deed in his favour and since the sale consideration is Rs. 25/= during 1945, the document was not registered. It is further submitted that P.W. 2, attestor to the document Ex.A. 1 spoken to the fact that he has attested the document. The evidence of D.W. 1 Village Administrative Officer and D.W. 2, Surveyor also supports the plaintiff's case.

8. Learned Senior Counsel also clarified that in Natham, first occupier will be treated as the owner and no patta will be given to them. Patta is issued only for assessed lands and it is the settled law. That is why, Natham is called as Poramboke i.e., "natham poramboke" which means "poram (g[wk;)" is outside; "poke (nghf;F)" is revenue record. Thus the word "poramboke lands" means the lands which is not assessed to revenue records and it is outside the revenue accounts. Likewise, "gramanatham" is defined in the Law Lexicon as "ground set apart on which the house of village may be built". Similarly, Natham land is described in Tamil lexicon published under the authority of University of Madras to the effect that it is a residential portion of a village; or portion of a village inhabited by the non brahmins; or land reserved as house sites; etc., Learned senior counsel also relied on very many decisions of this High Court as well as the Apex Court to the effect that Poramboke does not include natham and grama natham never vest with the Government, which will be referred to in the latter part of this judgment.

10. Taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1, who is the plaintiff, at the time of her examination she was aged 101 years and she has deposed that she had purchased suit items 1 and 2 as vacant lands and before that there was a building in the said lands. She had purchased the grama natham lands in the year 1945 from her vendor. P.W. 2, who is one of the attesting witness to Ex.A. 1 has deposed that he knows the possession of suit items 1 and 2 even by the vendor Palaniandi's father since he is doing onion business in the adjacent land. At the time of purchase, there was a hut where cattle were tied and haystack was also stored. P.W. 3 is the son of the first plaintiff. He deposed that it is not Government Poramboke, but it is grama natham and since 1945 they are in possession and enjoyment of the same by putting by hut which got destroyed during the recent rain.

12. D.W. 2, who is the Surveyor in his evidence stated that they have prepared a draft for issuing patta in favour of the persons who are in possession of S. No. 370. Sine S. No. 370/A/1B is vacant the issuance of patta has been stopped on the directions of the proceedings issued by the Directorate. In his cross he has stated that his predecessor has recommended for issuance of patta to P.W. 3, Periyasamy in respect of S. No. 370/A/16 which is 36 cents.

13. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the suit properties are grama natham lands. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel no patta will be issued in respect of grama natham and the first occupier is the owner of the particular portion of land. Though D.Ws 1 and 2 have deposed that the suit 1 and 2 properties were vacant sites, D.W. 1 admitted that there is a hut used for keeping haystack. He has also admitted that there were houses around the suit properties. It is very unfortunate that to prove that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit properties no documentary proof in the nature of revenue records or registers have not been produced by the defendants. Even the fasalis mentioned by D.W. 1 relates to the period after filing of the suit. D.W. 2 in his evidence admits that 36 cents is in possession of the plaintiff.