Madras High Court
J.Shanthi Jeysingh vs V.Thangadurai on 11 December, 2023
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
S.A(MD)No.119 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
S.A(MD)No. 119 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.3108 of 2018 & 9312 of 2019
J.Shanthi Jeysingh ... Appellant
Vs.
1.V.Thangadurai
2.Karuppasamy
3.Kaliyappan
4.K.Shanmuga Vel
5.Mookaiyan
Gurusamy (Died)
6.Marichamy
7.Chinnapalaniyammal @ Palaniammal
8.Sumathy
Veerammal (Died)
Rajammal (Died)
9.K.Subbulu
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.119 of 2018
10.Alliyammal
11.Seeniyammal
12.Dr.V.Rajendran
13.Rajangam ... Respondents
[Respondents 6, 10, 11 & 15 already dead and exonerated in the first appeal]
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code
against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2017 made in A.S.No.26 of 2016 on
the file of Subordinate Court, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree dated
27.04.2016 made in O.S.No.184 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Theni.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
For Respondents 1 & 13 : Mr.S.Raja Sekar
For Respondents 2, 5 to 11 : Mr.T.Thirumurugan
For Respondents 4 & 12 : Mr.N.Tamil Mani
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated
16.08.2017 in A.S.No.26 of 2016 on the file of Subordinate Court, Theni,
confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.04.2016 in O.S.No.184 of 2013 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The Plaintiff is the Appellant and the Defendants are the
Respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the contesting parties shall be
referred to as Plaintiff and Defendants.
3. Heard Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, the Learned Counsel appearing for
the Appellant, Mr.S.Raja Sekar, the Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 & 13, Mr.T.Thirumurugan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents 2, 5 to 11, Mr.N.Tamil Mani, the Learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents 4 & 12 and perused the material documents available on record.
4. The suit in O.S.No.184 of 2013 was filed for bare injunction
against the defendants. The contention of the plaintiff is that one J.Veeran
Maathari is the owner of the land to the extent of 3 acres 96 cents. Subsequently,
a portion of the land was sold to one Perumal Chettiar in the year 1940 and then
the land was sold to several private individuals through sale deeds, finally 36
cents of land was allotted through partition deed to the plaintiff's husband. The
plaintiff's husband has settled 36 cents of the property in the name of the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
through a settlement deed through which the plaintiff is claiming right over the
property.
5. The defendants are claiming to be the Legal Heirs of the Veeran
Madhari. The defendants 1 & 2 are Power of Attorney holder. The defendants 12
& 13 are subsequent purchaser from the defendants 3 to 11 through the
defendants 1 & 2. The 2nd defendant is Power of Attorney holder as well as the
legal heir of Veera Madhari.
6. The contention of the defendants is that the said Veera Madhari
belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and hence the land in S.No.160/1 being a
Panchami Land was allotted to Veera Madhari. Since the land is dispute is
classified as Panchami Land, the land cannot be sold to people belonging to other
community people. Therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of Perumal
Chettiar and the subsequent sale deeds are to be treated as 'null and void'. The
defendants submitted that since the sale deed is 'null and void' they need not seek
separate declaration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Admittedly the land in question is Panchami land. Both the Courts
have accepted the contention that the land is a Panchami land, but had held that
the Government is not a party and hence the injunction cannot be granted to the
plaintiff. This Court is of the considered opinion that both the courts have erred in
declining injunction. Since the Panchami land is allotted to the scheduled caste
community people with the condition it cannot be sold to other community people
and if there is violation of such condition, then the government can cancel the
allotment and treat the sale as illegal. Hence the plea of the defendants that they
need not prefer any petition before any authority to declare the sale as null and
void cannot be accepted. It is at the incidence of the government that the sale
need not be declared as null and void. The defendants who are descendants of
Veera Madhari, ought to prefer application before the authority for any relief. In
the present case the defendants had not preferred any police complaint, had not
preferred any petition under SC / ST Act to cancel the sale and reallot the same to
them. In such circumstances, the land will be reverted to government and the
government can again allot the said land to the any other scheduled caste people.
If the land is reverted to the government, then the said Veera Madhari’s legal heirs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cannot claim any right over the alleged allotted Panchami land. Hence the
plaintiff is entitled injunction against the legal heirs of the said Veera Madhari.
But injunction cannot be granted against the Government, since the government
has power and authority to cancel the allotment and reallot the same to any other
scheduled caste people. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to injunction against the
defendants, but is not entitled to injunction against the Government.
8. In the present case, the said Veera Madhari who was the original
assignee has sold the land to some other community which is violation of
conditions of assignment. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to injunction against
the defendants, but is not entitled to injunction against the Government. In such
circumstances, the judgment and decree of both the courts are liable to be set
aside and accordingly set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is allowed.
However, the Government is at liberty to take action against the said Panchami
land as per law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. With these observations and directions, this Second Appeal is
allowed. No Costs. CMP(MD)No.3108 of 2018 is allowed and CMP(MD)9312 of
2019 is closed.
Index : Yes / No 11.12.2023
Internet : Yes
KSA
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Theni.
2. The District Munsif,
Theni.
3. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SRIMATHY, J
KSA
Judgment made in
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
