Madras High Court
Neeleswari vs Arulmighu Veeranakaliamman on 5 March, 2021
SA(MD)No.142 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 05.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A(MD)No.142 of 2021
Neeleswari ... Appellant/Respondent/2nd Defendant
Vs.
1.Arulmighu Veeranakaliamman
Thirukovil, Represented by
its Executive Officer,
Aathalur, Peravurani Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ...1st Respondent/1st Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Maheswari ...2nd Respondent/Respondent No.2/
3rd Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the
judgment and decree dated 14.10.2019 made in A.S.No.14 of 2019 on the
file of the Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai confirming the judgment and
decree dated 15.12.2016 made in O.S.No.112 of 2009 on the file of the first
respondent before District Munsif Pattukkottai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasundaram
JUDGMENT
The second defendant in O.S.No.112 of 2009 is the appellant.
2. The suit was filed by the first respondent temple seeking recovery
of possession as well as arrears of rent. The temple would contend that the
http://www.judis.nic.in1/7
SA(MD)No.142 of 2021
father of the first defendant Kasi Kudumban had taken the land alone on
lease from the temple and was in possession as a lessee. After the death of
the said Kasi Kudumban, the first defendant had trespassed into the property
and has been in possession of the same. She has also started to put up
construction in the suit property without permission of the plaintiff which
necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit in O.S.No.89 of 2007. It is also
claimed that the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
also claimed that the title was based on the revenue records and the
re-settlement register.
3. The first defendant Muthulakshmi died pending suit and her legal
heirs are impleaded as the defendants 2 and 3. The defendants resisted the
suit contending that the suit property was classified as 'river porampoke' in
the revenue records and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim title over the
same. It was also contended that the patta produced is not the document of
title and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek recovery of possession.
4. At trail, the Executive Officer of the temple was examined as P.W.
1 and one Raja, the Village Administrative Officer, Aathalur and
Manikkavalli, the Tahsildar, Peravoorani, were examined as P.W.2 and
http://www.judis.nic.in2/7
SA(MD)No.142 of 2021
P.W.3. Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. A Commissioner was appointed and
his report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C.2. Ex.X1 to X5 were
marked through witnesses. On the side of the defendants, the second
defendant was examined as D.W.1 and one Selvaraj was examined as
D.W.2. Exs.B.1 to B.47 were marked.
5. The trial court, upon a consideration of the evidence on record,
concluded that the plaintiff has established its title. Referring to the revenue
documents, particularly, re-settlement register and ROR, the trial court
concluded that though the property was classified as 'river porampoke', it
was shown to be dry land in the occupation of the plaintiff even in the
re-settlement register. The fact that the patta was also granted in favour of
the plaintiff recognising the possession of the plaintiff, the trial court
concluded that the claim of the defendants that the land is river poramboke
land and therefore the plaintiff has no title over the same was rejected. The
trial court however rejected the claim of the plaintiff for arrears of rent
while decreeing the suit for recovery of possession.
6. Aggrieved, the second defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.14
of 2019. The appellate Judge, upon a re-consideration of the evidence on
http://www.judis.nic.in3/7
SA(MD)No.142 of 2021
record, concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the
appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal.
6. I have heard Mr.D.Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants.
7. Mr.D.Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit that the courts below were not right in concluding that the plaintiff
temple has made out a case for recovery of possession solely based on the
revenue records. He would also submit that the defendants are in possession
independently and therefore the claim based on tenancy ought not to have
been accepted by the courts below.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel.
9. The plaintiff temple seeks recovery of possession on the ground
that the deceased first defendant trespassed into the property after death of
her father, who was the original tenant. The plaintiff temple would rely
upon the revenue records particularly the resettlement register to establish
its title and possession of the property.
http://www.judis.nic.in4/7
SA(MD)No.142 of 2021
10. The defendants would resist the suit contending that the land
being classified as 'river poramboke', the plaintiff cannot claim title over the
property. In answer to the said contention, the courts below have referred to
the resettlement register, which clearly shows that the plaintiff is in
possession of the property and the property as on ground is a dry land. The
said factual finding, in my considered opinion, will debar the defendants
from contending that the property still remains as a Government poramboke
or river poramboke. Once the land is described as dry land and is in
possession of a particular person in the resettlement register and patta was
granted to the said person, only a person, who has better title, could deny
the right of the person, in whose favour patta was granted, to recover the
property. The defendants have not produced any document to show a better
title. Therefore, I do not think that the courts below could be faulted for
decreeing the suit. I do not find any question of law much less substantial
question of law to entertain this appeal. Therefore, this appeal fails and the
same is dismissed without being admitted.
05.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
http://www.judis.nic.in5/7
SA(MD)No.142 of 2021
To:
1.The Sub Court, Uthamapalayam
2.The District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam
3. The Section Officer
VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in6/7
SA(MD)No.142 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN. J.,
CM
S.A(MD)No.142 of 2021
05.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in7/7
