Madras High Court
Malaiyan vs The District Collector on 3 February, 2021
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
1.Malaiyan
2.Arunachalam
3.Moiyan
4.Vellaiammal
5.A.Annamalai
6.Lakshmi
7.A.Balakrishnan ... Appellants
(The 7th appellant was a party
only in the First Appellate Court
added as LR of the 10th plaintiff.)
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Salem.
2.Revenue Divisional Officer,
Salem.
3.The Tahsildar,
Yercaud, Salem District.
4.Chinna Gounder
5.Malaichiammal ... Respondents
(5th Respondent was a party only
before the 1st Appellate Court as
the LR of the 10th plaintiff)
Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004 passed in
A.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 passed in O.S.No.391 of
2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
For Appellants : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manikandan
Nos.1 to 3 Govt.Advocate
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and decree
dated 29.10.2004 passed in A.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the First Additional
District Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001
passed in O.S.No.391 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif
Court, Salem.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
rankings in the trial Court.
3.The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in the second appeal.
4.The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for the reliefs of declaration and
consequential permanent injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
5.From the materials placed on record and also going through the
averments contained in the plaint and in the written statement as well as the
judgment of the Courts below, it is found that as rightly concluded by the
Courts below, the plaintiffs are not sure about the nature of the suit property as
such. However, from the materials available on record, it is evident that the
suit property is the Government Temple Poramboku land. The plaintiffs put
forth the claim that they had been enjoying the suit property for several years
and thereby, acquired title and further, according to the plaintiffs, for the
enjoyment of the suit properties, they have been paying kist receipt, which had
been exhibited in the matter and therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the
Courts below have failed to consider the abovesaid facts in the proper
perspective and erroneously dismissed the suit laid by them.
6.Per contra, it is the contention of the defendants that the suit land is a
porambokku land used for the festival occasion and according to them, 72
surrounding villages would assemble in the suit land to worship Gods and
therefore, when the suit land is utlised for the public purpose in connection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
with the temple festival, no one is entitled to claim the exclusive possession
and enjoyment of the suit land and the plaintiffs, on the footing that they are
enjoying a small extent of land in the suit property and paying penal tax with
reference to the same and thereby cannot lay a claim that they had acquired
title to the suit property as described in the plaint and enjoying the same as the
absolute owners thereof.
7.As rightly concluded by the Courts below, the plaintiffs have not even
taken the plea of adverse possession for claiming title to the suit property. That
apart, the plaintiffs have also not established that they had perfected their title
to the suit property by way of adverse possession by placing acceptable and
reliable materials to evidence that they had been in the possession and
enjoyment of the suit property openly, continuously, uninterrupted for more
than the statutory period exhibiting animus attitude against the real owner of
the suit property and in such view of the matter, merely on the production of
certain penal tax receipts and when admittedly the suit property is the temple
porambokku land, which fact has not been controverted as such, in such view
of the matter, the Courts below are found to be justified in non suiting the
plaintiffs. As rightly concluded by the Courts below, the judgment and decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
obtained by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.209 of 1991 on the file the District Munsif
Court, Salem would not in any manner advance their case. Particularly, the
abovesaid suit has been laid only claiming for the relief of permanent
injunction and the Government is also not a party to the said suit. In such view
of the matter, as rightly held by the Courts below, Ex.A4 judgment rendered in
the abovesaid suit would not be useful to sustain the plaintiffs' case.
8.In view of the abovesaid factors, the suit property being the temple
porambokku land and the plaintiffs having encroached the small extent and
paying penal tax, on that footing, cannot claim any title over the suit property
and also the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and in such
view of the matter, the reasonings and conclusions of the Courts below for
dismissing the plaintiffs' suit are found to be cogent and acceptable and also on
the proper appreciation of the materials placed on record in the right
perspective and in such view of the matter, there is no reason for warranting
interference in the same. In such view of the matter, no substantial question of
law is involved in this second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
In conclusion, the Judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004 passed in
A.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Salem,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 passed in O.S.No.391 of
2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem, are confirmed
and accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sms 03.02.2021
To
1. The First Additional District Judge, Salem.
2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
T.RAVINDRAN,J.
sms
S.A.No.1427 of 2008
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
