Madras High Court
Tamilarasi vs Tamil Nadu State Government on 3 June, 2021
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No. 4398 of 2021
Tamilarasi ... Appellant/Appellant/ Plaintiff
-Vs-
1.Tamil Nadu State Government,
through its District Collector,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar.
2.Veeracholam Panchayat,
through its President,
Thiruchuli Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3.Solomon
4.Ganesan
5.Arumugam
6.Kumaravel
7.Kuppu ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the Judgment and Decree, in A.S.No.5 of 2019 on the file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
of Learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai, dated 01.11.2019,
confirming the Judgment and Decree, in O.S.No.310 of 2005 on the file
of learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai, dated 07.09.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Natarajan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran for R1 & R2
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, who lost before both the Courts below, has preferred
the present second appeal before this Court.
2. The appellant / plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction. The specific case of the appellant
is that the suit property absolutely belongs to her and the same has been
classified as a street by the first respondent even without issuing notice to
the parties. The appellant, in order to substantiate her right, had
examined PW.1 and PW.2 and had marked Exs.A1 to A12.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts
below did not properly appreciate the title documents that were marked
during the course of trial. It was further submitted that no notice was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
issued before re-classifying the suit property as a street. The learned
counsel further submitted that the report filed by the Commissioner was
not properly considered by the Courts below. That apart, it was also
submitted that the defendants have not proved that the suit property was
a street or that they were using it as a street. It was also argued that the
Appellate Court did not properly formulate the points for consideration
under Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., and therefore the judgment of the
Appellate Court is vitiated on that ground alone.
4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government
Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and also the materials available on
record.
5. In the present case, the suit property was classified as a street in
the year 1990 itself under the UDR scheme and whereas the appellant
had purchased the property only in the year 1995 and the same is clear
from the sale deed marked as Ex.A1. The Courts below, while
appreciating the documents relied upon by the appellant, has
categorically found that Ex.A4 which is the parent document is silent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
about the old survey number and the current survey number and it does
not even mention the pymash number. Under such circumstances, the
Courts below correctly came to a conclusion that the parent document
did not correlate with the suit property.
6. When the parent document is silent about the old and new
survey numbers and the appellant was not able to produce any revenue
records to substantiate the possession of the suit property by the
predecessor in title and the appellant had purchased the property only in
the year 1995, after the reclassification, there is absolutely no material to
show that the predecessor in title had the right and title over the suit
property and was enjoying the suit property.
7. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner never attempted to
get any patta for the suit property if really she was in possession and
enjoyment of the same after she purchased it in the year 1995.
8. Insofar as the report of the Commissioner is concerned, it is only
a piece of evidence which may or may not be relied upon by a Court. The
Courts below have dealt with the report of the Commissioner and found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
that the same does not in any way substantiate the case of the appellant.
9. Even insofar as the middle portion of the suit property is
concerned, the Courts below have found that there is no document to
show that the middle portion in S.No.368/10 was partitioned and allotted
to the mother of the appellant and thereafter was allotted as a Sridhana
property to the appellant. Even Exs.A2 and A12 does not in any way
establish the title of the appellant insofar as the middle portion of the suit
property is concerned.
10.Insofar as the southern portion of the suit property is concerned,
the appellant has relied upon Ex.A11 which is a patta issued in favour of
the appellant. That apart there was no other document available to prove
that the same belonged to the appellant.
11. Insofar as the nature of proof that is required in suits filed for
declaration of title against the Government, the Courts below have
rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
R.Hanumaiah and another vs. Secretary to Government reported in
2010 (5) SCC 203.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
12.An attempt was made to make out a case as if the property is a
Gramanatham and therefore it cannot vest with the Government. Such an
argument is completely baseless since there was not even a pleading that
the suit property is a Gramanatham land. Therefore, such a contention
can never be entertained and it has been rightly rejected by the Courts
below.
13.Insofar as the points for determination, it is now a settled law
that if the Appellate Court has dealt with all the issues and has re-
appreciated the evidence, the mere omission to state the points for
determination cannot become a substantial question of law. Useful
reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Nopany Investments (P)Ltd., vs. Santokh Singh (HUF), reported in
2008 (2) SCC 728 and which was subsequently followed in Kasilangam
vs. The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by District Collector and others
reported in 2009 (5) CTC 24.
14. In the considered view of this Court, this Court does not find
any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the Courts below
and there are absolutely no substantial questions of law involved in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
present case. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
judgments of the Courts below.
15. In the result this Second Appeal stands dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PJL
To
1.The Sub Judge, Aruppukkottai
2.The Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai.
3.The Record Keeper,
E.R/V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
PJL
S.A.(MD).No.327 of 2021
03.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
