Madras High Court
Komu Thevar vs Thiruvadudurai Adheenam on 21 June, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2013
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3969 of 2021
and
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.1862, 1863, 1864 and 1865 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2, 2, 2 and 2 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2013
in
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1862 of 2013
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013:-
Komu Thevar ... Appellant
Vs.
Thiruvadudurai Adheenam,
Rep. through its Adheenathar,
Sri La Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi,
Thiruvadudurai,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk,
Nagai District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.11 of 2011 dated 12.01.2012 on the
file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Ambasamudram, confirming judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
decree passed in O.S.No.333 of 2005 dated 27.10.2010 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar,
For M/s.Ojas Law Firm
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1862 of 2013:-
Kittu Konar ... Appellant
Vs.
Thiruvadudurai Adheenam,
Rep. through its Adheenathar,
Sri La Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi,
Thiruvadudurai,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk,
Nagai District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.14 of 2011 dated 12.01.2012
on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Ambasamudram, confirming judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.330 of 2005 dated 27.10.2010 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar,
For M/s.Ojas Law Firm
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1863 of 2013:-
Ramaiah Thevar ... Appellant
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
Thiruvadudurai Adheenam,
Rep. through its Adheenathar,
Sri La Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi,
Thiruvadudurai,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk,
Nagai District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.12 of 2011 dated 12.01.2012
on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Ambasamudram, confirming judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.327 of 2005 dated 27.10.2010 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar,
For M/s.Ojas Law Firm
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1864 of 2013:-
Komu Thevar ... Appellant
Vs.
Thiruvadudurai Adheenam,
Rep. through its Adheenathar,
Sri La Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi,
Thiruvadudurai,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk,
Nagai District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.8 of 2011 dated 12.01.2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Ambasamudram, confirming judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.334 of 2005 dated 27.10.2010 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar,
For M/s.Ojas Law Firm
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1865 of 2013:-
Kittu Konar ... Appellant
Vs.
Thiruvadudurai Adheenam,
Rep. through its Adheenathar,
Sri La Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi,
Thiruvadudurai,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk,
Nagai District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.7 of 2011 dated 12.01.2012
on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Ambasamudram, confirming judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.328 of 2005 dated 27.10.2010 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar,
For M/s.Ojas Law Firm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
COMMON JUDGEMENT
The revision petitioners as well as the appellant in the second appeal
challenge the impugned judgments and decrees passed in favour of the
respondent/Thiruvadudurai Adheenam.
2.The case of the plaintiff/Adheenam is that the suit properties belong to
it and that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same in their
capacity as tenants. The defendants have failed to pay the agricultural rent as
agreed. In order to recover the rental arrears, these suits have been instituted.
The courts below have accepted the case projected by the plaintiff/Adheenam
and decreed the suits. One such defendant namely., Komu Thevar filed
A.S.No.11 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudharam and the same was
also dismissed. Challenging the same, S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013 has been
filed.
3.The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions
of law:-
“(a) When the entire Sivanthipuram village, originally the
Inam Estate of the plaintiff was abolished and converted into
Ryotwari and the same was vested with the Government under
the provisions of Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, whether the respondent can
maintain the suit for recovery of pattom against the Ryotholders?
and
(b) Whether the courts below are right in giving a finding
that the recovery arrears of pattom amount is not hit by
Limitation Act by wrongly interpreting Section 109 of Tamil Nadu
Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and
ignoring that the same is applicable only for recovery of
possession?”
4.Since the suit claim in the other matters was below Rs.25,000/-, second
appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable and
therefore, civil revision petitions have been filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code. Since common issues are involved in all these cases, they are
being disposed of together by a common judgment.
5.There is no dispute that the suit properties were originally inam estates.
The Government of Tamil Nadu issued notification under Tamil Nadu Act
No.26 of 1963. The consequences of such notification are spelt out under
Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963. As a result, the inam estates came to be vested in the
Government free of all encumbrance and the existing relationship of landholder
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
and ryot also stood extinguished. Thereafter, inter se rights of the parties
would stand governed by the issuance of ryotwari patta under Sections 9 ,10,
11 and 15 of the said Act. There is again no dispute that originally ryotwari
patta was issued in favour of Adheenam way back in the year 1980 and that the
same was subsequently set aside and the matter was remanded. Following the
remand, the Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Chepauk, Chennai, issued
ryotwari pattas in favour of the claimants herein on 10.12.2015. The same was
challenged by the Adheenam in W.P.Nos.21718 of 2016 etc. batch. The
appellant and the revision petitioners herein were also parties to the said writ
proceedings. By order dated 26.06.2018, the writ petitions were allowed and
the order dated 10.12.2015 was set aside. The matter has been remitted to the
file of Assistant Settlement Officer, Chepauk, Chennai. The learned counsel on
either side admit that the enquiry proceedings are still pending and that final
orders are yet to be passed.
6.The judgments and decrees passed in favour of Thiruvadudurai
Adheenam can be sustained only if it can be shown that ryotwari pattas in
respect of the suit properties have been issued in favour of Thiruvadudurai
Adheenam. It is obvious that the issue is yet to attain finality. Ryotwari patta
has not been granted to either of the parties. Of course, the learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
Thiruvadudurai Adheenam would point out that the revenue pattas are standing
in the name of the Adheenam and that it is the Adheenam, which is paying
taxes and other statutory charges to the Government. That may be so but
unless ryotwari patta is granted in favour of Thiruvadudurai Adheenam, the
appellant/revisions petitioners cannot be construed as tenants under the
Adheenam.
7.In this view of the matter, the first substantial question of law framed in
the second appeal is answered in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the
judgment and decree put to challenge in S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013 is set aside.
For the very same reason, the judgments and decrees impugned in the other
civil revision petitions are set aside. The second appeal and the civil revision
petitions are allowed and the matters are remitted to the file of the trial court.
The trial court will keep the suit proceedings in abeyance. As and when the
settlement proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chepauk,
Chennai, attain finality and final orders are passed, the parties would be at
liberty to mark the ryotwari patta and the suits will be disposed of based on the
outcome of the settlement proceedings. In other words, if the ryotwari patta is
issued in favour of Thiruvadudurai Adheenam, the suit will be decreed. If the
ryotwari pattas are issued in favour of the defendants, the suits will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
dismissed. The issue of limitation is left open. The direction given in these
proceedings will be applicable only to the parties herein. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1.The Sub Court,
Ambasamudram.
2.The Principal District Munsif Court,
Ambasamudram.
Copy to:
The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
S.A.(MD)No.656 of 2013
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
