Madras High Court
S.Mathalai Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 July, 2024
2024:MHC:2557
S.A.(MD) No.1050 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A. (MD) No.1050 of 2008
S.Mathalai Kumar ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. By District Collector,
Theni District.
2.District Forest Officer,
Theni Division,
Theni. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
against the judgment and decree, dated 11.01.2007, passed in A.S.No.16 of
1999 on the file of Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.IV,
Periyakulam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 16.11.1998, passed
in O.S.No.138 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Andipatti.
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD) No.1050 of 2008
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kadarkarai
For Respondents : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran,
Addl.Govt.Pleader.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit was for declaration
of title, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction, directing the first
defendant to grant patta to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial
Court. The findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate
Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the unsuccessful plaintiff has
come by way of this Second Appeal.
2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally formed part
of erstwhile Gandamanur Zamin, comprised in old Zamin Patta No.152. The
suit property originally belonged to one M.Subramania Iyer and he sold the
suit land to one Krishnasami Gounder under an unregistered sale deed, dated
09.11.1957. The vendee under the document had taken over the possession of
the suit property and enjoyed the same. Subsequently, he sold the suit
property to the plaintiff under Ex.A-3, dated 25.03.1963. It was further
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contended by the plaintiff that in the sale deed in his favour, the survey
number of the suit property was wrongly mentioned as 27/N instead of 27/Z.
Subsequently, Zamin Abolition Act came into force and the plaintiff applied for
issue of Ryotwari Patta under the said Act. The Commissioner of Land
Administration passed an order, rejecting the claim of the plaintiff on
27.03.1992. It was further contended by the plaintiff that when his claim was
pending before the settlement authorities, the Forest Department initiated
proceedings to notify the area, including the suit property, as a forest area and
since the notification was issued when the settlement proceeding was pending,
the same was invalid. It was also contended that the Revenue Department
issued B-Memos to the plaintiff and he has been paying tax to the total extent
of 17 acres of the suit property. Thus, claiming that the plaintiff and his
predecessors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title and other reliefs.
3. The defendants filed a written statement and contended that
55000 acres in the suit village, namely, Megamalai was declared as reserve
forest under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for
brevity) and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. It was
also contended by the defendants that a notification under Section 4 of the Act
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was issued by the Government, notifying Megamalai village as a forest area
and necessary proposals have been submitted to the Government to declare
the same as reserve forest. Therefore, it was contended by the defendants that
the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred under Section 4 of the Act.
4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and an
independent witness was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, 12
documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the defendants, one
witness was examined as D.W.1 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to
B-5.
5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his
right over the suit property and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same,
the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.16 of 1999 on the file of Additional
District Court-Fast Track Court No.IV, Periyakulam. The first appellate Court
affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings,
the plaintiff is before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the suit property was originally classified as a Ryoti land and the character of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the property would not change even after the notification was issued under the
Act and, therefore, the Courts below committed an error in non-suiting the
plaintiff. The learned counsel further submitted that though in Ex.A-3 title
document of the plaintiff Survey Number of the suit property was wrongly
mentioned as 27/N instead of 27/Z, the suit property can be identified with
the four boundaries and therefore, the Courts ought to have granted a decree
for declaration of title and injunctions, as prayed for.
7. The plaintiff claims right over the suit property under Ex.A-3.
Under the said document, he purchased the property from one Krishnasamy
Gounder on 26.03.1963. The said Krishnasamy Gounder, in turn, purchased
the suit property from M.Subramania Iyer under an unregistered sale deed,
dated 09.11.1957. Therefore, even as per the admitted case of the plaintiff,
Subramania Iyer sold the suit property to his vendee Krishnasamy Gounder
under an unregistered sale deed, which would not convey any title to the
vendee and, therefore, the title of Krishnasamy Gounder over the suit property
is inherently doubtful as per the averment found in the plaint. Further,
Krishnasamy Gounder sold 17 acres of land in Survey No.27/N. However, the
suit Survey Number is 27/Z. The Courts below, by pointing out the
discrepancy in the survey number and also the discrepancy in four
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
boundaries mentioned in Exs.A-3 and A-2, came to the conclusion that the
plaintiff failed to prove his right over the suit property.
8. Apart from the plaintiff's failure to prove his right over the suit
property by dispelling the doubt created in the discrepancy in the survey
number and also the four boundaries, the notification under Section 4 of the
Act was issued by the Government as per Ex.B-2. It is also seen that under
Ex.B-3, a proposal was sent to the Government for issuing final notification
under Section 16 of the Act. The suit has been filed on 08.12.1994,
subsequent to the notification issued by the Government under Section 4 of
the Act. The plaintiff failed to produce any material before this Court that he
raised an objection before the statutory authorities under Section 6 of the Act.
It is also seen no final notification was issued under Section 16 before filing of
the suit. Hence, the suit is clearly barred under Section 5 of the Act.
9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that on
the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the plaintiff''s claim for
patta was pending before the settlement authorities and, therefore, he could
not make any objection before the authorities, constituted under the Act.
Even assuming that settlement proceedings ended in favour of the plaintiff
and patta, if any granted in his favour, after the notification under Section 4 of
the Act, it was for the plaintiff to make necessary objection before the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authorities constituted under the Act, under Section 6 and then only, the
claim of the plaintiff could be considered and adjudicated by the authorities
before final notification under Section 16.
10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the plaintiff failed to raise any
objection before the authorities concerned. In such circumstances, in view of
the bar under Section 5 of the Act, the present suit, filed by the plaintiff, is
also not maintainable. The plaintiff, who failed to raise his little finger by
raising his objection against the notification issued under the Act declaring
the lands in Megamalai village, including the suit property, as forest land, is
not entitled to maintain the present suit for declaration of title before the Civil
Court. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the
Courts below that the plaintiff was not entitled for declaration. Consequently,
the Second Appeal stands dismissed, as devoid of any substantial questions of
law. No costs.
01.07.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dixit
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.Additional District Judge/
Fast Track Court Judge No.IV,
Periyakulam.
2.District Munsif,
Andipatti.
3.Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dixit
01.07.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
