Madras High Court
Saroja vs Vijay Chakkaravarthy on 8 November, 2021
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7260 of 2021
Saroja ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Vijay Chakkaravarthy
2.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai.
4.The Tahsildhar,
Karaikudi Taluk,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- This Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in
O.S.No.69 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi,
dated 30.04.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
For R2 to R4 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesh
Government Advocate
ORDER
The 1st defendant, whose application for rejecting the plaint has been
dismissed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi, is the revision
petitioner before this Court.
2.The facts in brief, which are necessary for disposing of the above
petition, are as follows:-
3.The 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.69 of 2015 on the
file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi for the following
reliefs:-
“m) NjtNfhl;il Nfhl;lhl;rpau; mth;fspd; 29.05.2015-k;
Njjpa %.K.m1.6489/2013 cj;juT nry;yhJ vd tpsk;Gif
gupfhuk; toq;fpAk;,
M) Vw;fdNt thjpapd; ngaupy; fhiuf;Fb tl;lhl;rpau;
mth;fshy; 23.06.2006 md;W jh.g.kh.d1415/440 vd Vw;gl;Ls;s
cl;gpupT kw;Wk; gl;lh khWjy;fs; nry;Yk; vd tpsk;Gif
gupfhuk; toq;fpAk;”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
4.It is the case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff that the suit schedule
property belongs to one Thangaraj, S/o.Subbiah, in whose name the revenue
records had been mutated. The said Thangaraj had sold the property to his
paternal uncle’s son, namely, Solaiappan under an unregistered sale deed. The
said Thangaraj died as bachelor leaving behind no issues. Even prior to the sale
in his favour, the said Solaiappan had been enjoying the suit schedule property,
which he continued after the purchase. The said Solaiappan had also been
obtained patta in his name by an order of the Revenue Inspector dated
25.11.1987 in RIPT No.41/97. The said Solaiappan had been paying necessary
taxes in respect of the property. Thereafter, the said Solaiappan under the
registered power of attorney dated 03.03.1988 had entrusted the management of
the property to one Vivekanandhan, S/o. Ramasamy Ambalam. The said
Solaiappan also gave power of sale to the said Vivekanandhan.
5.The power agent sold the property under a registered sale deed dated
12.09.2002 to one Rajaiah, S/o.Manickavasagam. The document of title in
respect of the suit property was also handed over to the said Rajaiah. Patta was
also transferred in the name of said Rajaiah from the name of Solaiappan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
6.Rajaiah in turn had given power to one P.Padmanabhan under a
registered power deed dated 04.04.2005, on the strength of which, the said
P.Padmanabhan had sold an extent of 6.30 cents to one Azhagarsamy. The
remaining extent of 1 acre and 23.70 cents was sold to the plaintiff, under a
registered sale deed dated 17.02.2006.
7.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi, by his proceedings dated 23.06.2006 had
subdivided the property purchased by the plaintiff as S.No.42/20A and granted
patta in favour of the plaintiff. The remaining extent of 6.30 cents, which had
been sold to Azhagarsamy, was subdivided as S.No.42/20B and the patta in
patta No.92 was issued in favour of said Azhagarsamy.
8.The plaintiff would submit that from the date of the purchase, he has
been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff had formed
layout of house sites in the suit property. These house sites were known as
‘Valliammai Nagar’. The plaintiff had granted a power of attorney in favour of
one M.Chidambaram, under a power deed dated 03.07.2006 registered as
Doc.No.862/2006, which was subsequently revoked by revocation deed dated
09.06.2009 registered as Doc.No.820/2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
9.Meanwhile, the 1st defendant claiming to be the wife of Thangaraj/the
original owner, made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai for having the patta granted in her name and without any enquiry,
orders were also passed on 29.05.2015, which is the subject matter of challenge
in the suit.
10.On entering appearance in the above suit, the 1st defendant had taken
out an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
seeking rejection of the plaint on two grounds. Firstly, the suit is barred by
limitation and secondly that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 14 of
the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The learned Additional District
Munsif, Karaikudi on hearing both parties dismissed the said application,
against which, the petitioner is now before this Court.
11.Mr.R.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly
admit that the question of limitation may not be a ground for rejection, since
limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. He would however submit that as
per the provisions of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983,
no suit would lie in respect of any entry made in any patta pass book or in
respect of any entry that has been omitted or amended. The suit is filed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
questioning the inclusion of the names of the defendants in the patta pass book
and therefore, it would squarely come within the prohibition of Section 14 of
the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. He would further argue that the suit
filed without seeking declaration of title is also liable to be dismissed.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (3) CTC 440 (Venkataraja and
others Vs. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (d) through legal heirs and others) in
support of the above argument. He would draw the attention of this Court to
paragraph No.16, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the proviso
to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has been enacted specifically to
avoid multiplicity of the proceedings as well as the loss of revenue of Court
fees.
13.The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of this Court
in S.A.No.1349 of 2003 (Meenakshi Vs. K.Marimuthu and others), where, the
learned Judge has held that a suit challenging the grant of patta would come
within the four corners of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act,
1983 and hence, the same is not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
14.Mr.K.S.Selvaganesh, learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/Government Authorities would submit that the
suit was very much maintainable and does not come within the prohibition of
Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983.
15.Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.
16.The petition for rejecting the plaint has been filed on two grounds,
namely, a) limitation and b) the suit is barred as per the provisions of Section 14
of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. While arguing the matter, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963.
17.The learned counsel has fairly conceded that the plea of limitation
being a mixed question of law and fact will not be a ground for rejecting the
plaint. Therefore, the Court has to analyze as to whether the suit as filed is
barred by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Section 14
of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 with its proviso reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
“14.Bar of suits:- No suit shall lie against the Government or any
officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in
any patta pass book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such
entry omitted or amended.
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he
is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass book under this Act, he
may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his
title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the
patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with any such
declaration.”
18.Reading of the above provision indicates that the suit would not lie
against the Government or an Officer of the Government in respect of a claim
regarding an entry in any patta pass book maintained under the Act. However,
proviso is added to the Section, which says that where a person is aggrieved
when his right is affected by an entry in the patta pass book, he can institute a
suit against the person denying or interested in denying title to such right by
filing a suit for declaring his rights as provided under Chapter VI of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the patta pass book would be amended in
accordance with such declaration. Therefore, if the suit is filed simpliciter
against the Government or the public authority challenging an entry made in the
Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, a suit under Section 14 of the Act would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
not lie. However, the proviso makes it clear that where the challenge is to a
claim by a third party, then declaratory suit is definitely maintainable.
19.In those circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
orders of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi in I.A.No.2 of 2020
in O.S.No.69 of 2015 dated 30.04.2021.
20.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 08.11.2021
Internet : Yes / No
mm
To
The Additional District Munsif,
Karaikudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
C.R.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2021
08.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
