Madras High Court
Thomas vs The Special Tahsildar (La) No on 16 July, 2021
A.S.No.671 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.671 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.20155 of 2019
1. Thomas
2. Francis Xavier ...Appellants
Vs.
1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) No.1,
Neyveli.
2. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC Ltd., Neyveli.
3. Lourthumary
4. Zakrias
5. Lucas
6. Amalarayar
7. Anthonisamy
8. Josephnathan
9. Perianayagamary
10. Vincent
11. Soloman
12. Thiviyanathan
13. Thanasamy
14. Devanayagam
15. Jesu John Arokiyasamy
16. Arokiyanathan
17. Mariarose
18. Anithamary ...Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1 of 8
A.S.No.671 of 2019
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 02.03.2018 passed in L.A.O.P.No.26 of 2016
on the file of the learned Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases,
Cuddalore.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Rajmohan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.Edwind Prabakar
For R2 : Mr.A.Jayaraman
For R3 to R10
& R17, R18 : Mr.R.Muralidaran
For R11 to R16 : Mr.V.Ramachandramoorthy
JUDGMENT
The Appeal Suit is arising out of the Judgment and Decree
dated 02.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Subordinate Judge for
LAOP Cases, Cuddalore, in L.A.O.P.No.26 of 2016, only in respect of the
apportionment of compensation.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that the appellants are the claimants 1 & 2. The subject land was
purchased by the grandfather of the appellants by the registered sale deed
dated 20.11.1951. By way of registered partition deed dated 23.05.1990,
which is marked as Ex.P.4, the subject land was partitioned between the
legal heirs of the grandfather. Accordingly, the acquired land was allotted
to the father of the appellants herein. If at all the respondents 3 to 18
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.671 of 2019
disputed the allotment, they have to challenge the partition deed dated
23.05.1990. Therefore, the appellants also equally get the compensation
in respect of the land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2.1. He further submitted that the sons of their grate grandfather
viz., Sandhiyagu & Soosairathinam filed suit in O.S.No.8 of 2009 and the
same was dismissed. It clearly shows that the Court below has taken
contra view by ordering ¼ share to all the legal heirs. That apart, the said
Sandhiyagu & Soosairathinam have sold their shares of 35 cents each to
the second appellant herein by the registered sale deed dated 28.10.1976,
which is marked as Ex.P.1. However, the Court below concluded that the
claimants 3 to 6 and the claimants 7 &8 along with the daughter are
entitled to have ¼ share in the award amount, without awarding any
compensation to the second appellant.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 3 to 18 submitted that the Court below elaborately discussed
about the shares to all the claimants and rightly awarded the
compensation and not granted any compensation to the appellants herein.
Therefore they prayed for dismissal of this present appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.671 of 2019
4. Heard Mr.J.Rajmohan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, Mr. R.Muralidaran, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 3 to 7 & 17, 18, Mr.V.Rachachandramoorthy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents 11 to 16.
5. One Mariayasoosai had three sons viz., Thambusamy,
Sandhiyagu and Soosairathinam and one daughter viz., Santhanamary.
The appellants herein are the grandsons of the said Tambusamy and the
other claimants are the legal heirs of the other two sons and daughter. The
entire properties were purchased from the joint family funds and not out
of any separate fund of any of the family members. However, the
appellants claimed that an extent of 0.62.0 acres in R.S.No. 4/2 situated
in Valayamadevi Keelapthy village was purchased by their grandfather
viz., Tambusamy on 20.11.1951 out of his own funds. Thereafter his
grandfather and his brothers viz., Sandhiyagu and Soosairathinam were
orally divided their family properties.
6. During the partition, his brothers claimed partition right in
the property comprised in Survey No. 4/2. On mediation, their
grandfather agreed to allot 0.35 acre each to his brothers. In the year
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.671 of 2019
1970, their grandfather died and his only son i.e., the father of the
appellants herein viz., Vanathiyan was in possession and enjoyment of his
share to an extent of 0.85 acre. Later the said brothers viz., Sandhiyagu
and Soosairathinam were executed sale deed in favour of the second
appellant viz., Xavier, who was minor represented by his mother.
Thereafter, the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the entire
extent of 1.55 acres in R.S.No.4/2. In O.S.No.638 of 2004 on the file of
the Additional Munsif Court, Cuddalore, by a compromise decree, the
appellants were allotted 0.31.25 acre each out of 0.62.0 acre. Therefore,
they the appellants claimed the entire compensation in respect of the
property comprised in R.S.No.4/2.
7. It is seen that though the appellants claimed entire
compensation, they did not produce any documents to show that the land
comprised in survey R.S.No.4/2 was purchased by their grandfather out
of his own fund. The entire properties ad measuring 1.55 acre comprised
in R.S.No.4/2 stand in the name of their grandfather and his brothers. In
fact, during the deposition, the first appellant herein categorically
admitted that the claimants 11 to 16, who are legal heirs of one of the
daughter viz., Santhanamery, are also entitled for compensation. That
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.671 of 2019
apart, the evidence of the first appellant revealed that the properties
comprised in R.S.No.4/2 are the joint family properties, in which their
grandfather and his two brothers along with one sister are entitled to have
¼ share each. Accordingly, the Court below rightly apportioned the
compensation and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order
passed by the Court below.
8. In the result, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
16.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
rts
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.671 of 2019
To
1. The Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases,
Cuddalore
2. The Special Tahsildar (LA) No.1,
Neyveli.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC Ltd., Neyveli.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.671 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
A.S.No.671 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.20155 of 2019
16.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
