Madrasdated High Court · 2025

SA No. 641 of 2012Thiruvakkarai Village,Vanoor Taluk.2.SuseelaW/o.GovindapillaiThiruvakkarai Village,Vanoor Taluk..... Plaintiffs/RespondentsPRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2011 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2010 in O.S.No.51 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Judge, Vaanoor and allow the appeal.For Appellants :Mr.R.Sunil KumarFor Respondents :Mr.M.Jagadheesanfor M/s.P.B.Ramanujam AssociatesJ U D G M E N TThis Second Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2011 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2010 in O.S.No.51 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Judge, Vaanoor. __________Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 20122. Heard Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.M.Jagadheesan for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 3. The defendants are the appellants. The suit has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 'A' and 'B' suit schedule properties. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appeal preferred by the defendants got dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Now, the defendants have preferred the second appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court.4. The short facts of the plaint pleaded by the plaintiffs:The suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are Government properties and they are situated in Natham Survey Nos.229/4 and 229/24. The suit 'A' schedule property, which is in Survey No.227/14 corresponding to new Survey No.229/24 has been assigned in favour of the first plaintiff on 30.03.1998 in H.S.No.37/1407. Similarly, the suit 'B' schedule property in Survey No.229/4 __________Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 2012has also been assigned in favour of the 2nd plaintiff on 30.03.1998 through H.S.No.37/1407. Thus, the plaintiffs have become entitled to 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and they have been in enjoyment of the same. Even, while those properties were remained as 'Poramboke', the plaintiffs' father Govindapillai along with his brother Ranganathan have partitioned the same between themselves. After the assignments have been granted in favour of the plaintiffs, neither Govindapillai nor his brother Ranganathan has got any rights over the suit properties. 4.1. While so, the first plaintiff's paternal uncle Ranganathan has made undue claim in respect of the suit property by quarrelling with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs learnt that the said Ranganathan had clandestinely had transferred the patta in his name by adopting some illegal methods and executed a Sale Deed dated 25.01.2006. The said fact came to light to the plaintiffs only on 10.07.2006. Since the defendants are making false claim over the suit property by creating documents, the plaintiffs have come forward with this suit for declaration and permanent injunction.__________Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 20125. The averments pleaded in the written statement filed by the defendants 1 & 2 in brief:The suit property belonged to a joint family comprising Muthusamipillai and his three sons Varadarajapillai, Govindapillai and Aranganathanpillai. All the four have partitioned the property on 17.05.1987 through a registered partition deed. As per the above partition, the properties in Natham Survey No.227/14 to an extent of 21 X 70 on the Eastern side was allotted in favour of Ranganathanpillai and an extent of 21 X 70 on the Western side has been allotted to the share of Govindapillai. Hence, the patta has also been granted in the name of Ranganathanpillai in Survey No.229/4 for an extent of 00134 sq.mt in Patta No.457. The said Ranganathanpillai has sold the share allotted to him in favour of the first defendant through a Sale deed dated 25.01.2006. Thereafter, the patta has been mutated in favour of the first defendant. The western half of 1470 sq.ft allotted to Govindhapilla is in enjoyment of Govindapillai family [who are the plaintiffs]. As the plaintiffs were not happy with the sale effected in favour of the defendants, have filed this frivolous suit. The property, which is in the enjoyment of the defendants is in Survey No.229/4. The plaintiffs cannot claim the relief of declaration through __________Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 2012assignment, without impleading the Government as the party to the suit. Hence, the suit should be dismissed.6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues :- "1/ tHf;F brhj;Jf;fs; thjpfSf;F Kiwna ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;Jf;fs; vd;gJ rhpah>2/ tHf;F brhj;Jf;fis thjpfs; Kiwna mDgtpj;J tUtij gpujpthjpfs; jLf;f Kw;gl;ldh; vd;gJ rhpah>3/ jhth mtrpakhd egh;fis jug;gpdh;fshf nrh;f;fhjjhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ rhpah>4/ thjpfSf;F mth;fs; nfhhpa ghpfhu';fs; fpilf;f jf;fjh>5/ thjpfSf;F fpilf;f ntz;oa ,ju ghpfhu';fs; vd;d>TLjy; vGtpdhf;fs;1/ jhth brhj;J murh';fj;jhy; mird;bkz;l; bra;ag;gl;l brhj;jh>2/ mtrpakhd egiu jug;gpduhf nrh;f;fhjjhy; jhth ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>" 7. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and Exhibits B1 to B12 were marked. __________Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 20128. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the oral, documentary evidence and the submissions of the learned counsels for either side, has decreed the suit as prayed. The First Appeal preferred by the defendants also dismissed by confirming the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over that, the defendants have preferred the Second Appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the courts below did not make a mistake in holding that the grant of assignment in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the property admittedly classified as Grama Natham would extinguish the right and title of the 1st defendant and her predecessor in title.2. In a suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property, whether the burden of proof is not on the plaintiff to place his evidence to prove his title and possession over the suit property independent of the evidence to be adduced by the defendant?3. Whether the courts below did not make a mistake in entertaining the suit as such for declaration and injunction in respect of the property admittedly not in possession of the plaintiff on the date of decree.”__________Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 20129. The learned counsel for the appellants / defendants submitted that the assignment on the basis of which the plaintiffs claim title over the suit property itself has been cancelled subsequently on 03.07.2024 and this is a subsequent development. The appellants have filed an application to receive the cancellation order as an additional document, which has been heard along with this appeal. The defendants are in the enjoyment of the suit property and that was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Even in the plaint of the plaintiffs, they have stated that the defendants' predecessor Ranganathanpillai and his father Govindapillai had been in joint enjoyment and partitioned the property before 1998, still, they have not stated from when onwards the exclusive possession has been transferred in favour of the plaintiffs. The declaration in respect of the land belong to the Government has been sought without impleading the Government as a party. As the Government has cancelled the assignment, the suit itself become infructuous.10. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that on the date of plaint, the respondents had the right over the suit property pursuant __________Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 2012to the assignment given in their favour. Even if the assignment is cancelled, that will not confer any right on the defendants. 11. The Trial Court has proceeded with the documentary evidence and has rightly decreed the suit. The defendants have not proved their possession in respect of their suit property after 1998 or very specifically after the assignment granted in their favour of the respondents. However, on the basis of the above arguments, this Court is inclined to admit the appeal only in respect of the first substantial question of law. The respondents/plaintiffs have all along claiming title in their favour only based upon their assignment granted in their favour in respect of the suit property. As the plaint of the plaintiffs itself, it is admitted that before the assignment was granted, the suit property has been in enjoyment of their father Govindapillai along with their paternal uncle Ranganathanpillai. When the defendants continued to claim their entitlement and possession over the half of their suit property as per the partition deed dated 17.05.1987, the plaintiffs have not proved from when onwards they had taken the entire possession over the suit property in pursuant to the assignment in their favour.__________Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 201212. Both the parties did not have any quarrel with regard to the fact that the properties were Poramboke and it belongs only to the Government before the assignment. So, the evidence on record especially the partition deed, which has been marked as Ex.B1 shows that both the plaintiffs' father Govindapillai and the defendants' vendor Aranganathanpillai had been in joint enjoyment of the suit property. No one is entitled to create any transfer of title in respect of the property belongs to the Government. Hence, the partition deed can only be looked to appreciate the possession over the Poramboke land prior to the assignment. As stated already, the assignment has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property vide Exs.A1 and A2. Had the assignment was given in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of half of the suit property i.e, 1470 sq.ft alone, the appellants would not have any difficulty. Because, they have purchased only the other half of Aranganathanpillai. Unfortunately, Aranganathanpillai has not given with any assignment, despite there are records to show that he was also in joint enjoyment along the plaintiffs' father in the suit property.__________Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 201213. In the CMP filed by the appellants in CMP.No.6031 of 2025, they sought permission of the Court to receive an additional document, which is the proceedings of RDO, which cancelled the earlier assignment granted in favour of the plaintiffs' through the proceedings dated 03.07.2024. Though this is a subsequent development, the respondents/plaintiffs did not choose to challenge the same. In fact, the copy of the cancellation of assignment has been marked in favour of the plaintiffs also. So, the plaintiffs cannot deny their knowledge about the cancellation of assignment. 14. By cancellation of assignment, the Government gets back its title. For the reasons best known to the plaintiffs, they did not opt to implead the Government also as a party to the suit proceedings, where they have sought a relief of declaration. The additional documents now produced by the learned counsel for the appellants showing the cancellation of assignment made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs plays a significant role for the lis. Hence, I feel that the permission should be granted for receiving the said document as additional evidence in the suit. As the document is not available for the appreciation of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, I feel it is appropriate to admit the document.__________Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 201215. The whole claim of the plaintiffs itself is based on assignment given in their favour by the Government and now the Government has cancelled the same. Hence, I feel it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the First Appellate Court to receive the same as additional document and re-appreciate the merits of the matter in the light of the new material now produced before the Court.16. In the result, this Second Appeal is disposed of. The judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011 made in A.S.No.39 of 2010 by the learned Principal Sub Judge Tindivanam confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2010 made in O.S.No.51 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Judge, Vaanoor, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the First Appellate Court to receive the additional document now filed by the appellants and mark the same as additional evidence on the side of the defendants and re-appreciate the entitlement of the plaintiffs to seek the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, in the absence of the Government being a party and dispose the First __________Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 2012Appeal within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.17. In view of the above stated reasons, CMP No.6031 of 2025 filed by the appellants stands allowed. Registry is directed to send back the records to the First Appellate Court within a period of two weeks. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 22-10-2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NokmiTo1. The Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam2.The District Munsif Court, Vaanoor. __________Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 641 of 2012Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.kmiSA No. 641 of 2012 andM.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 201222-10-2025__________Page 14 of 14