Madras High Court
Thevayal vs State Of Tamilnadu on 20 January, 2021
S.A..No.1400 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAVINDRAN
S.A.No. 1400 of 2008
and
M.P. No.1 of 2008
1. Thevayal
W/o. late Pattappan
2. Easwaramoorthy
S/o. late Pattappan
3. Sasikala
D/o. late Pattappan ... Appellants
Vs.
1. State of Tamilnadu
represented by its
District Collector
Erode District.
2. District Revenue Officer
Erode District
3. Tahsildar
Tahsildar Officer
Sathyamangalam
Erode District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A..No.1400 of 2008
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate
Judge, Gobichettipalayam in A.S. No.22/2007 dated 12.02.2008 who had
confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.402 of 2004 dated
28.04.2006 passed by District Munsif, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.
For Appellants : Mr. S. Parthasarathy
For Respondents : Mr. N. Manikandan
Government Advocate(CS)
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and
decree dated 12.02.2008 passed in A.S. No.22/2007 on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 28.04.2006 passed in O.S. No.402 of 2004 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their rankings in the trial court.
3. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.402 of 2004 are the appellants in
the second appeal.
4. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A..No.1400 of 2008
5. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the suit property
belonging to the Government was originally assigned in favour of one
Gopal, son of Venkatrama Chettiar, by the Government, on 10.08.1973
under conditions, particularly, that he should not alienate the property
assigned to him within 10 years of the date of assignment.
6. According to the plaintiffs, after the expiry of 10 years,
Gopal had alienated the suit property in favour of one Madian on
19.11.1983. Subsequent thereto, the first plaintiff's husband and the
father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 Pattappan has purchased the suit property
from Madian on 24.01.1985 and enjoying the same. While so, the third
defendant had cancelled the assignment, vide the proceedings dated
19.07.1996, on the footing that the conditions while granting the
assignment of the suit property had been breached. Challenging the
same, the first plaintiff had preferred an appeal before the second
defendant. Till date, the appeal has not been disposed of. However, it is
only the plaintiffs who had been in the possession and enjoyment of the
suit property. Whileso, the defendants, without any right or interest over
the suit property, are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A..No.1400 of 2008
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, according to
the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the
defendants for appropriate reliefs.
7. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit laid
by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They have
admitted that the suit property had been originally assigned in favour of
Gopal on 10.08.1973 on conditions. However, according to them, in
violation of the abovesaid conditions, Gopal had alienated the assigned
property orally in favour of one Madian. The same had been detected and
following the same, the assignment had been cancelled by the authority
concerned. The same had been duly conveyed to the concerned persons.
Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs that they had acquired the title to the
suit property from Madian, cannot at all be countenanced in any manner.
The suit property had been taken over by the Government as the
conditions of the assignment had been breached by Gopal and therefore,
the claim of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the suit property from
the alleged purchaser of Gopal after the cancellation of the assignment
does not merit acceptance and therefore, contended that the suit has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A..No.1400 of 2008
laid by the plaintiffs without any cause of action and the suit is liable to
be dismissed.
8. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were
examined, Exs. A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the defendants
D.W.1 was examined and Exs. B1 and B2 were marked.
9. The courts below, on an appreciation of the materials placed
on record and the submissions put forth by the respective parties, was
pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. Impugning the same, the present
second appeal has been preferred.
10. It is not in dispute that the suit property belonging to the
Government had been originally assigned in favour of Gopal on
10.08.1973 on conditions. Inasmuch as Gopal had breached the
condition and alienated the property assigned to him to Madian orally
and on detecting the same, it is noted that the assignment granted in
favour of Gopal had been cancelled by the defendants vide the
proceedings dated 27.04.1986. Now according to the plaintiffs, even
prior to the same they had purchased the suit property from Madian on
24.01.1985. However, when it is noted that the assignment granted in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A..No.1400 of 2008
favour of Gopal had been cancelled on account of the breach of the
assignment conditions and furthermore, when it is also the case of the
plaintiffs that an appeal had been preferred challenging the same and the
appeal is stated to be still pending, in such view of the matter, the claim
of the plaintiffs that they had purchased the suit property from Madian
cannot at all be countenanced in the eyes of law. When the Government
had taken over the suit property by way of the proceedings dated
27.04.1986 and also duly intimated the same to the parties concerned, the
claim of title of the plaintiffs by virtue of the sale deed dated 24.01.1985,
as such, cannot be upheld in the eyes of law. Furthermore, the claim of
the plaintiffs that they are in the lawful possession and enjoyment of the
suit property based on the abovesaid sale deed also cannot be
countenanced in any manner. When the plaintiffs' vendor Madian is
found to be not the lawful owner of the suit property in any manner, the
contention of the plaintiffs that they had acquired the title to the suit
property by way of purchase on 24.01.1985 cannot be accepted and
therefore, the courts below have rightly proceeded to dismiss the
plaintiffs suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A..No.1400 of 2008
11. On a perusal of the judgment and decree of the courts
below, it is noted that the courts below have rightly assessed the pleas
put forth by the respective parties and the materials projected in the
matter correctly, both on the factual matrix as well as on the point of law,
and rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to
seek the reliefs as prayed for. In such view of the matter, no substantial
question of law is found to be involved in the second appeal.
Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A..No.1400 of 2008
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
bga
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam
2. The District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.
3. State of Tamilnadu
represented by its
District Collector
Erode District.
4. District Revenue Officer
Erode District
5. Tahsildar
Tahsildar Officer
Sathyamangalam
Erode District.
6. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras
S.A.No.1400 of 2008
20.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
