Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: fmb in The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Ponnusamy on 23 January, 2026Matching Fragments
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the plaint in O.S. (SR) No.448 of 2022, that is to say the revision petitioners will be referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondent herein will be referred to as the defendant. PLAINTIFFS' CASE:
3. The plaintiffs' case in O.S. (SR) No.448 of 2022 is that, as per the 1905 Field Measurement Book [FMB], Mittah Survey No.72 of Namakkal Mittah, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District comprised land of a total extent of 9 Acre 48 Cents. As per the 1905 FMB, Survey No.72 had six sub- divisions. The extent comprised in each sub-division, as per 1905 FMB, are as detailed below:
3.2. Later, in the year 1960, the land in Survey No.72 was resurveyed and the sub-divisions were altered and a new FMB was drawn as tabulated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm ) C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022 hereunder:
Survey No. New Extent Corresponding
sub-division (as (in Acres) old sub-divisions
per 1960 FMB) from 1905 FMB
72 1 2.19 5&6
2 3.81 2,3,4,5,6
3 1.51 3&4
5 0.67 2,3,4,5,6
6 0.95 2,3,4
Total Extent 9.48 Acres
3.3. According to the plaintiffs, major portion of the extent of old Survey No.72/2 in 1905 FMB, has been assigned sub-division nos.5 and 6 in the 1960 FMB and they have been clearly described as Poromboke (Kallanguthu) Land or in other words, Government Land.
3.4. While so, the defendant filed the Suit in O.S. No.320 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Namakkal, against the present plaintiffs 1 and 4, seeking declaration of title and mandatory injunction to register the defendant's name in the revenue accounts and the A-Register, in respect of the suit properties described therein which comprised of 94 Cents in new Survey No.72/5 and 1 Acre 18 Cents in new Survey No.72/6.
3.5. Only on December 15, 2021, after strenuous efforts, the plaintiffs were able to obtain the 1905 FMB from the Egmore Archives. Only upon obtaining the 1905 FMB and comparing it with the 1960 FMB, the plaintiffs came to know that the new sub-divisions 5 and 6 of Survey No.72 correspond to old sub-division 2 of Survey No.72 and that new sub- division 5 and 6 comprise of Government Lands. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant suppressed the true facts and falsely described the suit properties in his Suit, as if he has right in new sub-divisions 5 and 6 of Survey No.72 corresponding to old sub-division 2, with an ulterior motive to usurp the Government Land. The suit properties therein are not covered under the Sale Deed dated June 2, 1945 and do not belong to the defendant.