Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

35. Mr.T.R.Mani, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is well settled and is, by no means, disputed that zamin patta granted by the landholder prior to the Abolition Act is not merely an evidence of title, but is the document of title itself and is conclusive proof of possession of the ryot of his holding. In fact, the Lower Appellate Court itself referred to the rulings of the Privy Council and this Court in this behalf. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that zamin patta No.200 issued by the Zamindarini to the plaintiff's vendor  the said Mr.S.Vijayaranga Mudaliar for faslis 1350, 1352 and 1356 marked as ExA2 series conclusively established the plaintiff's title to and possession of the suit land. The zamin patta specifically referred to the prior possession and enjoyment of the land in question by the said Mr.S.Vijayaranga Mudaliar as ryot and specified the kist and cess payable therefor. The land in question was referred to as chinna eri karai oram tharisu punjai and karai mettu tharisu punjai. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is clear that the suit land was ryoti land and was not eri poramboke or any part thereof. ExA3  chitta extract for fasli 1359 (1948-1949) showed that the said Mr.S.Vijayaranga Mudaliar was in possession of the land and the property was described in similar terms as chinna eri karai oram tharisu punjai and karai mettu tharisu punjai. Under ExA4 settlement register extract for fasli 1359, the said Mr.S.Vijayaranga Mudaliar was shown as the pattadar of the land, which was described as punjai. All the zamin records conclusively established that the suit land was ryoti land and was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's vendor before the estate was notified and taken over. The plaintiff purchased the property from the said Mr.S.Vijayaranga Mudaliar under ExA1 sale deed dated 29.9.1952 executed pursuant to the sale agreement dated 15.3.1950 and the sale deed referred to zamin patta No.200. Therefore, the plaintiff's title is well established and cannot be doubted or disputed.

39. Mr.T.R.Mani, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that strangely, the Lower Appellate Court declined to act upon ExA2 to ExA4  zamin records doubting their genuineness without any basis therefor. In fact, at the time of trial, no such objection was taken. ExA2 series, ExA3 and ExA4 were marked without any objection by PW1. There was no cross examination whatsoever regarding their genuineness. Zamin patta No.200 was referred to in the sale deed  ExA1 in favour of the plaintiff and the observation to the contrary by the Lower Appellate Court was incorrect. In fact, the pattas were produced before the Estate Manager on 24.6.1974 and marked as ExA3 without objection before him as seen from the endorsement in the document itself. The claim to patta was negatived solely on the ground that the land was part of eri poramboke and not on the ground that the zamin pattas are not genuine.

58. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the plaintiff issued notice to the defendants to produce the original documents of Zamindarini, but the same were not produced on the ground that the same are not available. In this context, learned Senior Counsel referred to ExA26 = ExB71  the communication addressed by the Tahsildar, Salem to the District Collector, Salem wherein the Tahsildar had stated that the old zamin records are not available in his office and old zamin records are available only with the Estate Manager, Salem and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the contention of the defendants that the zamin records are not available cannot be countenanced. When the relevant documents admitted to have been in existence are not placed before the Court by the parties concerned, an adverse inference can be drawn against that party.

88. Learned AAG submitted that Ex.A-2 (alleged zamin patta) is not proved to be pattas granted by Gnanambal to Vijayaranga Mudaliar as per Section 54 of 1908 Act in a manner known to law; no supporting document viz., payment of rent receipt (issued under Section 62 of the Act) pursuant to Ex.A-2 were filed to substantiate the authenticity of Ex.A-2; on the other hand Exs.A-11 and A-12 is filed which was proved to contain number '2 A' which is given for a Government land over which there can be no dispute, and the said position is conceded by the appellant before this Court, that it is not relating to suit property; it is an admitted case by the plaintiff himself that Ex.A-2 was never given to plaintiff by Vijayaranga Mudaliar and that it was given by Vijayaranga Mudaliar to one Kulandai Pillai, who in turn gave it to plaintiff; Zamindarini Gnanambal was not examined to prove Ex.A-2; village Karnam who is normally acquainted with ryoti patta was also not examined to prove the probative value of Ex.A-2 to make it admissible in evidence; Vijayaranga Mudaliar and Kulandai pillai were not examined; hence, no probative / evidentiary value to Ex.A-2 series could be attached to arrive at any legal conclusion; Ex.A-2 is not proved in a manner known to law, more so when A-2 series is seriously disputed by defendants as forged and fabricated one; as such Exs.A-1 and A-2 are not admissible in evidence and plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his entitlement over the property conveyed under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and to suit property; no evidence was let in by the plaintiff to establish that Ex.A-2 series were issued in accordance with provisions contained Section 50 of The Estate Land Act, 1908 (Act 1 of 1908); Ex.A-2 does not contain the details as required under Section 51 of the aforesaid Act; no evidence is available as to whether Ex.A-2 (alleged Zamin patta), claimed to have been issued by the Zamindarini was issued in accordance with Section 54 of The Estate Land Act, 1908 (Act 1 of 1908); Ex.A-2 (alleged Zamin Patta) is not registered and signed by Karnam, as contemplated under Section 58 of The Estate Land Act, 1908 (Act 1 of 1908) and therefore it is not a document issued in confirmity with 1908 Act, and hence no evidentiary value could be placed on it and the same cannot be relied upon; no evidence is available on record to ascertain as to whether Thiru.Vijayaranga Mudaliar complied with Section 50(2) of The Estate Land Act, 1908 (Act 1 of 1908) and sought for a Zamin patta; Ex.A-2 (alleged Zamin patta) does not contain all the details required under Section 51 of the Estate Land Act, 1908 (Act 1 of 1908) nor does it state that the period of the said patta as mandated under Section 52 of The Estate Land Act, 1908 (Act 1 of 1908).