Madras High Court
B.Rajaram vs Muniasamy on 23 February, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1365 of 2021
B.Rajaram : Appellant
Vs.
Muniasamy : Respondent
PRAYER:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,
to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 24.06.2015 made in A.S.No.5 of
2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul reversing the
judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2014 made in O.S.No.161 of 2008 on the file
of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.
For Appellant :Mr.A.Saravanan
****
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.161 of 2008 has come up with this second
appeal challenging the reversal of the dismissal of the said suit by the appellate
Court in A.S.No.5 of 2015.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
2.The suit was laid by the plaintiff/respondent herein seeking a
declaration of his title to the property. According to the plaintiff, the property,
which was a Government poramboke, was classified as Natham and was
assigned to one Muniammal by Tahsildar, Nilakkotai, on 15.04.1985. Upon
introduction of the Natham Settlement Scheme, the property was assigned a new
survey number as S.No.680/12 by the Special Tahsildar, Natham Settlement
Scheme, and patta was granted to the Muniammal on 07.12.1993. It is the
further case of the plaintiff that Muniammal sold the property to him under a
sale deed, dated 30.06.2008 and upon execution of the sale deed, mutation of
revenue records were also effected on 29.08.2008. Since the defendant, who is
the brother's son of Muniammal, attempted to interfere with his possession
claiming under a settlement deed, dated 10.03.2008, said to have been executed
by his father Palsamy, the plaintiff was forced to approach the Court seeking
declaration of his title and consequential permanent injunction.
3.The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that Muniammal and
her brother Palsamy were staying together under one roof and making use of the
absence of Palsamy during the day time, Muniammal obtained assignment in
her name. It was also contended that Muniammal had no independent right over
the property. The defendant would further plead that the conditions of
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
assignment have been violated by Muniammal and therefore, the sale in favour
of the plaintiff is invalid.
4.At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and one Subbiah was
examined as PW-2. Ex-A1 to Ex-A10 were marked. The defendant was
examined DW-1 and one Chinnasamy was examined as DW-2. Ex-B1 and Ex-
B2 were marked.
5.The trial Court, upon a consideration of the evidence on record,
concluded that the plaintiff has not proved that Muniammal was in possession
and enjoyment of the property since the date of assignment in the year 1985.
Upon such conclusion, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved,
the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2015.
6.The lower appellate Court. upon a re-consideration of the evidence on
record, concluded that once there is an assignment by the Government in favour
of Muniammal, Muniammal's title cannot be doubted. The appellate Court also
took note of the fact that Muniammal's possession was recognised by the
Government by granting patta under the Natham settlement scheme even during
the year 1993. The learned Appellate Judge also pointed out that it was not the
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
case of the defendant that Muniammal was never in possession of the property.
The appellate Court rejected the claim of the defendant that the sale deed
executed by Muniammal in favour of the plaintiff would not be valid since there
is violation of conditions of assignment. Upon above findings, the learned
appellate Judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit.
Aggrieved, the defendant has come up with this second appeal.
7.I have heard Mr.A.Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant.
8.Mr.A.Saravanan, learned Counsel for the appellant would vehemently
contend that the appellate Court erred in rejecting the claim of the defendant,
particularly on the violation of conditions of assignment. He would further
contend that though both Muniammal and Palsamy, father of the appellant, who
are siblings, were residing together in the house, that was situated in the suit
property. The fact that the assignment was given to Muniammal alone would
not vest complete title on Muniammal in order to enable her to alienate the
same.
9.I am unable to agreed with the contentions of the learned Counsel for
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
the appellant. Once the property is assigned to a particular person by the
Government, it belongs to him/her absolutely. His or her siblings cannot claim
title to the said property. Even conceding the possession of Palsamy, he cannot
set up title in himself as against the title that vests in Muniammal by virtue of
assignment. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that Muniammal and
Palsamy were in joint possession of the property and therefore, the assignment
made in favour of Muniammal will not confer absolute title to her cannot be
accepted.
10.As regards the violation of conditions of assignment, it is for the
Government to take action. Admittedly, the property was sold ten years after
the assignment. Therefore, the primary condition of inalienability for a period
of ten years is not violated. As regards the other violations pointed out by the
learned Counsel for the appellant, they require evidence and it is not for the
Court to decide in a suit for declaration of title at the instance of the purchaser
to go into those questions. It is for the Government to take action, if there are
any violations.
11.I do not find any question of law, much less a substantial question of
law arising for consideration. The second appeal fails and it is, accordingly,
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
dismissed without being admitted. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 23.02.2021
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
2.The District Munsif, Nilakottai.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2021
23.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
