S. Subramaniyan And Co., Represented By ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 16 June, 1998
The extent of 2.53 acres was got released from the mortgagee under Ex. A-1 and purchased by the appellant on the same date under Ex.A-2 delineated in the plan attached to Ex.A-1 and the plan left no doubt that 2.53 acres included the suit property. If only the lower appellate Court had adverted to the recitals in Exs.A-3 to A-6 it would not have made a mistake in observing that Exs.A-1 and A-2 did not refer to the property in question. The learned senior counsel drew my attention to the specific averments in the plaint in paragraphs 3 and 7 and the same not having been controverted in the written statement filed by the Government it must be deemed that the plaint averments had been accepted. Under Ex. A-3 the then land holder shrotriemdar namely Rao Bahadur Gatta Venkatapathy Naidu had conveyed the kudivaram rights over the entire property including the channel bed to Kamakshi Ammal and in view of the ruling in Vadivel Mudaliar v. State of Madras (1960)2 M.L.J. 140, he was competent to grant patta in respect of an abandoned channel bed.