Thanigachallam vs State Of Tamil Nadu
2023 Latest Caselaw 4240 Mad

                                                                         C.R.P. No.2632 of 2017 and
                                                                           C.M.P. No.12574 of 2017



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 13.04.2023

                                        CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                            C.R.P. No.2632 of 2017 and
                                             C.M.P. No.12574 of 2017

                1.Thanigachallam
                2.Sakthivel
                3.Gunasekaran
                4.Poovaragavan
                5.Manigandan
                6.Kannan
                7.Elumalai
                8.Thavamani                                                ... Petitioners

                                                       Vs.

                1.State of Tamil Nadu
                  Rep. by its District Collector
                  Cuddalore District
                  Cuddalore

                2.The Thasildar
                  Panruti Taluk
                  Cuddalore District

                3.Dhanabakkiyam

                4.The Director
                  Hindustan Lever Company Ltd
                  Door No.165/166, Back Bay Reclamation
                  Mumbai - 400 020

                5.Tannex Power Generation Limited

               __________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 5
                                                                             C.R.P. No.2632 of 2017 and
                                                                               C.M.P. No.12574 of 2017



                   Rep. by its Director
                   No.54, 2nd Floor, Red Cross Building
                   Mandith Street
                   Egmore, Chennai - 600 008

                6.Vellachchi
                7.Shanmugam
                8.Gunasundari
                9.Deivasundari
                10.Kanagavalli
                11.Amutha
                12.Kasthuri
                13.Bupathi
                14.Kasanda
                15.Ellammal
                16.Jeyasundari
                17.Anbuselvi                                                   ... Respondents



                PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

                India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 04.03.2017 made in I.A.

                No.1017 of 2016 in O.S. No.265 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif, Panruti.



                                  For Petitioner      :     Ms.U.Anunitha

                                  For Respondents     :     Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
                                                            Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2
                                                            Mr.C.Jagadish for R3




               __________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 2 of 5
                                                                              C.R.P. No.2632 of 2017 and
                                                                                C.M.P. No.12574 of 2017



                                                   ORDER

The plaintiffs have filed a suit challenging the sale deed executed in favour of

the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the land in question is a panchami

land and that the alienation is bad in law, whereas the defendants contend the

opposite. The matter went to trial and the plaintiffs have summoned the

Tahsildar, who in fact is the second defendant in the suit to testify and he had

testified that the lands are not panchami lands. The trial of the case concluded

whereinafter the plaintiff had taken out yet another application in I.A. No.1017

of 2016 for summoning the said Tahsildar and this was dismissed.

2. This court is informed that both sides have already addressed their argument

in the suit and the matter was reserved for pronouncing the judgment. In the

meantime, the case is posted for some clarification regarding court fee by the

court. Indeed it is posted today before the court below.

3. Heard both sides and this court also perused the papers available on record.

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. No.2632 of 2017 and C.M.P. No.12574 of 2017

4. It is disappointing if not shocking that the trial court has allowed the

plaintiffs to summon the Tahsildar, who is arrayed as the second defendant as a

witness. The law is settled that neither side shall have the right to summon its

opponent to tender evidence for oneself. But this flaw in procedure has already

been committed and it will be a sin in procedure to let it happen a second time.

5. To conclude, this court does not intend to interfere with the order of the trial

court and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition

is closed.

6. Inasmuch as the Tahsildar has been examined on the side of the plaintiffs

perhaps this court only directs that the testimony of the Tahsildar be received as

evidence of court witness and accordingly PW2 is directed to be treated as

CW1.

13.04.2023 Asr

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. No.2632 of 2017 and C.M.P. No.12574 of 2017

To The District Munsif, Panruti.

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

Asr

C.R.P. No.2632 of 2017 and C.M.P. No.12574 of 2017

13.04.2023

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis