Madras High Court
Muthulakshmi ... 2Nd vs Angarai Village Panchayat on 23 September, 2021
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
Muthulakshmi ... 2nd Plaintiff / 2nd Appellant / Appellant
-Vs-
1.Angarai Village Panchayat
by its Executive Authority
the Commissioner,
Kalgudi Panchayat Union,
Poovaalur,
Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District.
2.V.Narayanan ... Defendant & 1st Plaintiff / Respondent & 1st
Appellant / Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned first Additional
Subordiante Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 22.04.2002 in A.S.No.18 of 1999
confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Lalgudi, dated 30.11.1998 in O.S.No.492 of 1995.
For Appellant : Mr.VR.Venkatesan
For R1 : Mr.S.K.Mani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
JUDGMENT
The second plaintiff in O.S.No.492 of 1995 on the file of the District
Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, is the appellant herein.
Along with one Narayanan, the said suit was filed for the relief of
permanent injunction restraining the local panchayat from interfering with
the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant
panchyat submitted that the suit property is a natham poromboke and that it
belongs to the local panchayat. The suit property was never in the
enjoyment of the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-title. The local body is
utilizing the suit property for dumping garbage. According to the
defendant, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. Based on the
divergent pleadings, the trial court framed the necessary issues. The first
plaintiff examined himself as P.W.2, while the appellant's husband was
examined as P.W.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On the side of the
defendant, panchayat staff were examined. Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.
An advocate commissioner was appointed and his report and plan were
marked as Court Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. After a consideration of the evidence
on record, by judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998, the suit was
dismissed. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.18 of 1999
before the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. By judgment and decree dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
22.04.2002, the decision of the trial court was confirmed and the first
appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be
filed by the second plaintiff. This was because during the pendency of the
suit, the first plaintiff had parted with his right in the suit property in favour
of the second plaintiff. The second appeal was admitted on the following
substantial question of law:-
“Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are sustainable
in law as they not considered the entire evidence available on record
correctly and the question of law applicable to the facts of the case?”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the
contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this
court to answer the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant
and decree the suit as prayed for by setting aside the impugned judgment
and decree.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the panchayat/first
respondent submitted that the very framing of the suit was improper. The
suit property is a vacant site. The suit property has been used by the local
body as a dumping site. A perusal of the report of the advocate
commissioner would show that the suit property is situated outside the
compound wall of the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs had sought the relief of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
declaration, it would be a different matter altogether. The plaintiffs have
filed the suit for injunction simpliciter. That the suit property has been put
to use as dumping yard has been amply established by examining sanitary
workers employed by the panchayat. That is why, the courts below have
concurrently found against the plaintiffs. He submitted that exercising
jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C., the impugned judgment and decree
do not warrant any interference.
4. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
evidence on record. The suit property is comprised in Survey No.53/1 and
measures east-west 22 feet and north-south 95 feet and is situated to the
north of Ariyalur road and east of Perumalkovil road and west of
Sethuraman's house and south of plaintiff's property. In other words, the
plaintiff was already owning adjacent property, when the suit property was
purchased. According to the plaintiffs, the property originally belonged to
one Vembu Sastri and his sons. Vide sale deed dated 30.07.1945, he had
sold the said property in favour of one Krishna Moorthy Iyer. The said sale
deed was marked as Ex.A3. The schedule of property set out in Ex.A3
tallies with the suit property. Ex.A3 describes the suit property as
comprised in natham survey No.53/1. Under Ex.A2, dated 27.08.1966, the
first plaintiff Narayanan had purchased the suit property. Ex.A2 also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
describes the suit property as comprised in natham survey No.53/1. From
the said Narayanan, the appellant herein had purchased vide sale deed dated
25.02.1991 during the pendency of the suit. It is well settled that the
property categorized as natham will belong to the possessor and not the
Government (vide 2004 (3) CTC 270 Executive Officer, Kadthur Town
Panchayat Vs. V.Swaminathan).
5. In the case on hand, it has been amply established that the suit
property was dealt with by the private individuals under more than one sale
deed. Ex.A3 is a document of the year 1945. Ex.A2 is a document of the
year 1966. A local body being a state instrumentality is expected to conduct
itself in a fair and reasonable manner. Merely because there was some
empty vacant ground available, it could not have arbitrarily used as a
dumping yard. It was open to the local body to acquire the said site after
paying due compensation. The courts below after correctly noting that the
plaintiffs had established ownership over the suit property and after
rejecting the documentary evidence adduced by the local body, had still
chosen to non-suit the plaintiffs.
6. I am not able to appreciate the approach adopted by the courts
below. Ex.A4 is the rough patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs. It could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
not have been rejected merely because it came into existence during the
pendency of the suit. Ex.A4 should be seen as a continuation of the other
three documents. If the case of the plaintiffs is predicated entirely on
Ex.A4, the courts below could have declined to take it into account on the
ground that it is the post-suit document. That is not the case here. When
the plaintiff is tracing his title right upto the year 1945 and patta was issued
in his favour, the courts below ought to have accorded due respect to it.
Since the property is a natham and since the plaintiff had clearly established
and proved her title thereon, she is definitely entitled to the relief of
injunction. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the
appellant. The second appeal is allowed. No costs.
23.09.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
To
1.The Additional Subordiante Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi.
Copy To
The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.,
rmi
Judgment made in
S.A.No.1568 of 2002
23.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
