Palraj vs S.Ramalingam

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Palraj vs S.Ramalingam

2.The plaintiff filed O.S.No.157 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.20 of 1999 before the Sub Court, Palani and the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.

3.The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule properties were originally an uncultivated dry land and he had converted the same into agricultural 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003 land and he is in possession of the suit schedule properties from the year 1980 onwards. The plaintiff further contended that he was granted DKT patta under Exhibit A1 indicating the Survey No.1135, even though he was in actual possession of Survey No.1142/2. Thereafter, he approached the authorities to rectify the defects and the authority also rectified the same and granted patta under Exhibit A7 on 19.06.1993 indicating the corrected Survey No.1142/2. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants have no right, title or possession over the suit schedule properties and they are attempting to trespass into the suit schedule properties, hence, the plaintiff has come out with the suit for permanent injunction.

4.The defendants have filed a written statement, disputed the patta in favour of the plaintiff and contended that an error in Survey number has been corrected without notice to them and they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The defendants further contended that the 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003 original occupant of the said property is one Rajendran and he had executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of one Vellaichamy on 17.06.1983 and the said Vellaichamy has executed another unregistered sale deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 on 25.06.1983. Based upon the documents, though patta was standing in the name of one Abraham, the said Abraham had never disturbed the possession of the defendants. They had approached the revenue authorities for cancellation of patta standing in the name of said Abraham and to issue patta in the name of the defendants. Hence, the defendants contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to the prayer made in the suit.

5.The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, gave a finding that Exhibit A7 patta has been issued in favour of the plaintiff without following the due procedure and the trial Court also found that only the defendants have paid tax under Exhibit B3 in the name of Abraham and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established his 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003 possession over the suit schedule properties and dismissed the suit.

6.The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff had made an application under Exhibit A5 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for correcting the error in the survey number and in the said application, notice has been issued to the defendants also. However, the defendants have not chosen to appear before an enquiry officer on several occasions. Only thereafter, Exhibit A7 patta was granted with corrected survey number in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also considered Exhibits B6 and B7 documents which are alleged to be the compromise deeds between the plaintiff and the defendants after filing of the suit. The First Appellate Court had rejected these documents on the ground that no one connected with Exhibits B6 and B7 have been examined. The First Appellate court also relied upon the patta and other revenue records in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003

7.The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“(i)whether in law the respondent is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction when he has failed to establish that he is in possession on the date of the suit which is sine qua non in a suit for bare injunction”

8.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Exhibit A1 patta and A7 corrected patta have been wrongly issued in the name of the plaintiff without considering the fact that patta for suit survey number originally stood in the name of one Abraham. The learned counsel further contended that they have produced Exhibits B1 and B2 house tax receipts to the suit schedule properties to prove that they are in possession of the same. The original occupant of the land is one Rajendran and he has executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of one Vellaichamy from whom defendants 2 and 3 have purchased under an 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003 unregistered sale deed and hence, the plaintiff has no right title or possession over the suit schedule properties.

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that for the Government Poromboke, DKT patta issued by the revenue authorities alone, has to be considered as title to the plaintiff. He further contended that the plaintiff was issued with DKT patta under Exhibit A1 in the year 1980 by indicating a wrong survey number namely Survey No.1135, but it was corrected and Exhibit A7 patta was issued in the year 1993. The learned counsel further contended that he has produced Exhibits A9 and A10 tax receipts and Exhibits A8 to A13 receipts to prove his possession over the suit schedule properties at the time of filing the suit.

10.I have carefully considered the submissions on either side.

11.It is an admitted fact that the suit schedule properties are uncultivated dry land and belongs to the Government and patta has been issued to the suit 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003 schedule properties under Exhibit A1 in favour of the plaintiff with a wrong survey number and thereafter, under Exhibit A7 patta has been granted in favour of the plaintiff indicating the correct survey number namely 1142/2. Originally, the patta was standing in the name of one Abraham for Survey No.1142/2. Exhibit A7 patta has been granted in favour of the plaintiff after issuing notice and conducting enquiry. Though notice was issued, the said Abraham or the defendants have not chosen to appear before the statutory authority for enquiry and thereafter, Exhibit A7 patta has been granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have not chosen to challenge the said patta. That apart, Exhibits A8 to A13 tax receipts will clearly indicate that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties.

12.Though the defendants claimed title through one Rajendran and Vellaichamy, the defendants have not chosen to file any revenue records to show that their names were reflected at any one point of time. 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003 Moreover, the defendants have not chosen to examine any one of the their vendors. The defendants could not produce any revenue record standing either in their names or in the name of their vendors. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced Exhibits A1 and A7 patta and Exhibits A8 to A13 tax receipts for the suit survey number to establish his possession on the date of filing of the suit.

13.The First Appellate Court has arrived at a correct finding that the plaintiff has established his possession over the suit schedule properties and decreed the suit as prayed for. This Court does not find any illegality of irregularity in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. The substantial question of law is answered as against the appellants. The second appeal stands dismissed. No costs.




                                                                                 02.12.2021

                     Index    :               Yes / No
                     Internet :               Yes / No
                     msa



                     9/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003 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 Subordinate Judge, Palani

2.The District Munsif Kodaikanal

3.The Section Officer V.R.Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai 10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1566 of 2003 R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

msa Pre-delivery Judgment made in S.A.No.1566 of 2003 02.12.2021 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court