Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3.The parties are described as per their litigating status before the Trial Court.

4.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to Ragava Reddiyar and it was situate in Adhambakkam village, Ramnad District. The Ragava Reddiyar died, leaving behind his two daughters, namely Vijayalakshmi Ammal and Loganayaki Ammal, as his only legal heirs, who inherited the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the daughter Loganayaki Ammal died, without leaving any legal heir, but leaving a Will bequeathing her ½ share in favour of the plaintiff/the other daughter of Ragava Reddiyar. Thus, the plaintiff became the owner of the entire property comprising in Paimash No.585/3 of an extent of 46 cents. The plaintiff claims to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property, by fencing the suit land on all the four sides, in order to prevent encroachment by the third parties.

5.It is the further case of the plaintiff that in 1982, the plaintiff came to know that some unknown persons had entered into portions of the suit land and attempted to put up construction and denying the plaintiff's title to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis suit land. On making enquiries, the plaintiff came to know that the 9th defendant's agents and men had trespassed into the suit property and that the Inamdar of Adhambakkam Village, Atheenakartha of Sri Kundrakudi Tiruvannamalai Mutt., Ramnad District, had claimed patta for all the lands of the minor Inam, on the basis that both the Warams namely Kudiwaram and Melwaram belong to him. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu, held that the Inamdar was only entitled to Melwaram and the Kudivaram belongs to ryots, occupying the land. In the said proceedings for Paimash No.595/3 correlated to S.No.89/15 measuring 46 cents, being the disputed property, it was recognized to be the property of the 3rd defendant and patta was also issued to him.

11.I have gone through the entire records, including the report called for by this Court regarding the original land registers pertaining to Paimash No.585/3 and 590/5.

12.Mr.C.Manishankar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that the specific case of the plaintiff was that the lands belonged to the plaintiff alone and even in the year 1973, in the Assistant Settlement Officer's proceedings, patta was granted to the 3rd defendant and in the said patta in Paimash No.585/3, which is the plaintiff's property, was wrongly mentioned instead of S.No.595/5. The learned Senior Counsel would further https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis submit that when these proceedings were without notice to the plaintiff, the same would not bind the plaintiff in any manner. In so far as the sale deeds, under which the defendants 5, 6, 7 and 12 purchased various plots, they all correlate to Paimash No.590/5 and not the plaintiff's property in Paimash No.585/3. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the defendants had no iota of right, title and interest over the lands in Paimash No.585/3, to which the plaintiff has clearly established his right, title and entitlement by production of Ex.A1 to Ex.A17.

20.Even though the plaintiff may be correct in stating that she would be entitled to declaration, insofar as her lands in Paimash No.585/3 is concerned, considering that the suit itself has not been filed within a period of 12 years to declare the plaintiff's right, even though there may have been misdescription of Paimash numbers, resulting in the plaintiff losing possession of the property, the relief of declaration also has to fail. Unfortunately, the law of limitation is stringent and does not come to the support of the litigant who sleeps over his rights. Thus, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that since the defendants' case were totally based on a different Paimash number, the plaintiff' is entitled to a declaratory decree as prayed for.