Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The plaintiff, who failed in both the Courts below, is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit properties and recovery of possession thereof and a half share of the casuarina crop raised by the respondents, on the suit properties alleged to have been leased to the' 1st respondent or its value of Rs. 3,ooo.

2. The suit properties are 3 items of lands, viz., 1 acre 71 cents comprised in S. No. 97/1 said to correspond to Paimash No. 248/D forming item 1; 5 acres 50 cents of land comprised in S. No. 88/2 said to correspond to Paimash Nos. 221 and 365 forming item 2; and specific 13 acres 79 bents out Of 44 acres 13 cents comprised in Paimash Nos. 233, 250/A, 25O/B, 251, 252/B, 253, 255/B, 257/A, 257/B, 257/C and 264 of Karungali Village, Ponneri Taluk, Chingleput District, which was originally a zamin estate and taken over by the Government on 3rd January, 1951 under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition; and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 4 948.

4. The suit properties and other properties admittedly belonged originally to Tippu Saheb. Those properties appear to have been brought to sale subsequent to the death of Tippu Saheb in execution of a decree obtained against him in Small Cause Suit No. 19 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif 's Court, Poonamallee, and sold to one Parthasarathi Mudaliar. The appellant's wife Ghouse Bi and her brother Abdul Razack appear to have obtained reconveyance of the properties from the Court auction-purchaser Parthasarathi Mudaliar. Subsequently the first respondent obtained a sale in respect of a half share in those properties from Abdul Razack under Exhibit B-6 dated 18th November, 1944. Thereafter the appellant's wife Ghouse Bi filed O.S. No. 103 of 1947 in the Sub-Court, Chingleput, for a declaration that the sale of the half share of the properties by Abdul Razack (the third defendant in that suit) to the first respondent (the first defendant in that suit) was not valid and binding on her and that the first respondent was not entitled to be in joint possession of the properties with her on the basis of that sale and also for recovery of Rs. 3,500 being the value of the casuarina alleged to have been cut and removed by the first respondent and Parthasarathi Mudaliar. Exhibit A-10 is the copy of the plaint in that suit. The parties in that suit entered into a compromise (Exhibit B-1) and the compromise decree (Exhibit B-2) dated 12th August, 1949 had been passed in terms thereof, allotting certain properties to the first respondent. The properties had been described in the plaint, Exhibit A-10, by survey numbers though the zamin estate had been taken over under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948 only on 3rd January, 1951 and survey and settlement operations in respect of the estate could have commenced only thereafter. But, in the compromise petition and decree, Exhibits B-1 and B-2, the properties have been described only by paimash numbers.

9. As already stated, the lands had been described by survey numbers in the plaint (Exhibit A-10) in O.S. No. 103 of 1947 which had been filed by the appellant's wife Ghouse Bi against the first respondent, Pathasarathi Mudaliar and Abdul Razack, who were defendants 1 to 3 respectively in that suit. The estate having been taken over by the Government under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948 only on 3rd January, 1951, survey and settlement operations could have commenced only thereafter. Therefore, it is clear, as observed by the learned District Munsif, that paimash numbers have been wrongly mentioned as survey numbers in Exhibit A-10. This is made clear by the fact that in the compromise petition and decree, Exhibits B4 and B-2, dated 12th August, I949 only paimash numbers have been given.

10. The suit item 1 has been described as 1 acre 68 cents comprised in Paimash No. 92/1 in Exhibit B-2, while it is stated to be 1 acre 71 cents in Paimash No. 248/D said to correspond to S. No. 97/1 in the plaint. The suit item 2 has been described in Exhibit B-2 as 5 acres 22 cents comprised in Paimash No. 82/2, while in the plaint it is stated to be 5 acres 50 cents comprised in Paimash Nos. 321 and 265 said to correspond to S. No. 88/2. The suit item 3 is stated in Exhibit B-2 to be 13 acres 10 cents out of 39 acres 68 cents comprised in Paimash No. 90, while as stated already, it is stated in the plaint to be 13 acres 79 cents out of 44 acres 12 cents comprised in Paimash Nos. 233, 250/A, 250/B, 251, 252/B, 253, 255/B, 257/A, 257/B, 257/C and 264. No doubt, there is some discrepancy in the extents and paimash numbers between the plaint and Exhibit B-2. But the learned District Munsif has considered the boundaries and extents, with reference to the key list, Exhibit A-6, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his judgment and found that the suit items 1, 2 and 3 correspond to item 2, and 3 respectively in Exhibit B-2. With regard to item 1 he has found that the northern boundary in the plaint is given as S. No. 96 belonging to the first respondent and in Exhibit B-2 as the first respondent's land, that the eastern boundary of item 1 is given in the plaint as S. No. 92 and in Exhibit B-2 as item 3 which, according to the key list Exhibit A-6, is S. No. 92, that the western boundary is given in the plaint as Buckingham Canal and backwater and in Exhibit B-2 as Buckingham Canal, and that the southern boundary is not given in Exhibit B-2, and he has observed that three out of the four boundaries in regard to item 1 tally. With regard to the suit item 2 the learned District Munsif his found that item 1 in Exhibit B-2 should be S. No. 88/2 corresponding to suit item 2, that the eastern boundary is given inthe plaint as poramboke battai and in Exhibit B-2 as battai poramboke, that the southern boundary is given in the plaint as Chinthamani Eswarar Koil lands and battai and in Exhibit B-2 as poramboke battai and Chinthamani Eswarar Koil land and battai, that the northern boundary is given in the plaint as backwater and in Exhibit B-2 as Buckingham Canal and the first respondent's land and that the western boundary is given in the plaint as S. No. 89 belonging to the first respondent and backwater and in Exhibit B-2 as the first respondent's land, and he has observed that the boundaries of item 2 given in the plaint and Exhibit B-2 tally. With regard to the suit item 3 the learned District Munsif has found that the western boundary, according to the plaint, is parts of Section Nos. 97/1, 96 and 93 and in Exhibit B-2 as item 2 therein corresponding to S. No. 97/1, that the southern boundary is given in the plaint as battai and in Exhibit B-2 as battai poramboke leading to Kuppam, that the northern boundary is given in the plaint as S. No. 96 belonging to the first respondent and a portion of S. No. 92 and in Exhibit B-2 as the first respondent's land bearing Paimash No. 91 (a mistake for S. No. 91) and that the eastern boundary is given in the plaint as S. No. 92 and in Exhibit B-2 as the balance of Paimash No. 91 (a mistake for 92) belonging to Ghouse Bi and he has observed that the boundaries of item 3 tally, consequently be held that the suit properties had been allotted to the first respondent in the Compromise decree, Exhibit B-2.