Madras High Court
Karuneegar Sangam vs The Tahsildar on 18 April, 2023
S.A.No.181 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.181 of 2010 and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
Karuneegar Sangam,
Rep. by its President,
M.S.Parthibhan,
S/o.Sundaraganesan,
No.18, Velu Nagar,
Tiruvannamalai. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601.
4.The Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Office,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601.
5.Radhakrishnan
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.181 of 2010
6.Chinnaiyan
7.Vijaya
8.Sampath Lakshmi
9.Uma Maheswari
10.Sampoornam .. Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the
judgment and decree dated 12.11.2008 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2004 on the
file of the Additional Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in confirming the judgment
and decree dated 13.02.2004 passed in O.S.No.629 of 1984 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Mani
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Ms.R.Revathy
For RR 5 to 10 : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated
12.11.2008 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub
Court, Tiruvannamalai in confirming the judgment and decree dated
13.02.2004 passed in O.S.No.629 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.181 of 2010
2.The appeal arises from a suit filed by Karuneegar Sangam,
represented by its Secretary for a mere declaration that assignment made by
defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the 5th respondent is null and void. It is
pertinent to point out that no further relief has been sought for in the plaint.
The relief sought for are set forth hereunder:
“a) declaring that the order of assignment
dated 20.03.1978 passed by the 1st defendant vide
his office Ke.Mu.21217/77 is void;
b) directing te defendants to pay the
plaintiff the costs of the suit;
c) and passing such further or other
suitable reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper
under the circumstances of the case.”
2(i).The Trial Court dismissed the suit and it was confirmed by the
Lower Appellate Court.
3.Heard Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.181 of 2010
respondents 1 to 3, Ms.R.Revathy, learned counsel appearing for 4th
respondent and Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 5 to 10 and perused the materials on record.
4.Mr.P.Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
urge that the following substantial questions of law arises for consideration.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT:
A. Whether in law the impugned order of
assignment passed by the 1st defendant Tahsildar
in favour of the 5th defendant under Ex.B1 is
valid when the property covered under Ex.B1 is a
Gramma Natham land and the Government has
no authority to assign the same as held by this
Honourable Court in Krishnamurthy Gounder Vs.
Government of Tamilnadu, rep by The District
Collector, Cuddalore, [2002 (3) C.T.C. Page
221]?
B.Whether in law the present suit for
declaration that the order of assignment in favour
of the 5th defendant is null and void is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.181 of 2010
maintainable without seeking the relief of
cancellation of the said order of assignment?
C.Whether the Court below erred in law in
dismissing the present suit for declaration, as
barred by limitation as if the same has not been
filed within three years from the date of order
assignment when the present suit has been filed
within three years after exhausting appeal
remedy?
D.Whether the judgment and decree passed
by the Courts below are sustainable when they
have failed to considered and appreciate the
evidence on record in proper perspective and
based their conclusions on mere surmises and
conjectures?
4(i).I do not think any of these questions arise for consideration.
5.The case of the plaintiff is that it is the owner of the property in
T.S.No.604/1 and that it uses T.S.No.604/2 as an access to the aforesaid
property. T.S.No.604/2 was assigned to the 5th defendant, it came forward
with the suit. During the course of trial, the plaintiff's witness P.W.2, had
deposed that access to T.S.No.604/1 is through Ayyankulam Agraharam Street
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.181 of 2010
and not through the property situate in T.S.No.604/1. Further, admittedly the
property belongs to the Government. It is the discretion of the Government to
assign the land to anybody it wants, as long as the beneficiary comes within
the fold of the Government Grants Act, 1895, or under the relevant provisions
of the standing orders of the Board of Revenue, which after the abolition of
the board of revenue are statutory in flavour. The Government as well as
record shows that the Government has not assigned the land for free of cost to
the 5th respondent, but assignment was supported by consideration. Therefore,
the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit and the Lower Appellate Court has
confirmed the same.
6.I have to point out that the frame of the suit itself is bad. Under
Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for mere declaration is not
maintainable. The prayer set forth above would show that this is a suit for
mere declaration and it comes within the teeth of the proviso to the said
Section. The plaintiff, if he really interested in the property should have not
only asked for a declaration that an assignment deed is null and void, but
should have asked for further relief of recovery of possession, since
admittedly the 5th defendant is in possession of the property. That prayer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.181 of 2010
having been sought for, the suit ought to have been dismissed as not
maintainable, as it is hit by the proviso to Section 34. In any event, as I
already said it is open to the Government to farm out its land as long as the
same is in accordance with the statutory rules for assignment. The
Government, in its satisfaction, has decided to assign the property to the 5th
defendant and that too, on payment of charges. That having been done, it is
not open to a third party like the plaintiff, who has no right, title or interest
over the property to seek for a declaration that the assignment is null and
void. The Government being the owner, can deal with the property as it
pleases and dispose the same in accordance with law. No Civil Court can give
a direction, as such disputes, as long as the letter and spirits of the law
relating to assignment have been complied, do not fall within its jurisdiction.
In the light of the fact that suit is not maintainable and since admittedly the
property belongs to Government and it has assigned the property in favour of
the 5th defendant, none of the substantial questions of law framed by
Mr.P.Mani has arisen for consideration.
7.I am not admitting the Second Appeal and the Second Appeal stands
dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.181 of 2010
Tiruvannamalai in A.S.No.63 of 2004 dated 12.11.2008 in confirming the
judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in
O.S.No.629 of 1984 dated 13.02.2004 stands confirmed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
18.04.2023
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Tahsildar,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601.
4.The Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Office,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601.
5.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Additional Sub Court,
Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.181 of 2010
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
6.The Principal District Munsif,
District Munsif Court,
Tiruvannamalai.
7.The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
S.A.No.181 of 2010
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
