Madras High Court
Kathirvel vs Raman on 20 February, 2025
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
S.A.No.739 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
S.A.No.739 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.8788 of 2022
Kathirvel ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Raman
2. Sooran ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the
decree and judgment, dated 31.08.2016 passed in A.S.No.56/2014, on the
file of the I Additional Sub Court, Villupuram upholding the decree and
judgment dated 18.02.2014 passed in O.S.No.316/2009, on the file of the
Principal Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Dhamodaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muruganantham (for R1)
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below has
filed the present second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.316/2009 before the
Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet, seeking for a relief of
declaration of his title to the suit property and for a consequential relief
of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with
his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the Trial Court and at appropriate places, their rank in the
present second appeal would also be indicated.
4. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
The suit property originally belonged to the Government of
Tamilnadu. The Government assigned the suit property in favour of the
plaintiff during the year 1977. The patta bearing number 77 was also
issued in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property ever since the date of assignment and in
any event he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and
prescription. The defendants who do not have any right over the suit
property, are attempting to trespass into the suit property. Hence the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
5. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following
grounds:
i. The suit property was never assigned to the plaintiff.
ii. The suit property is the adjacent property of the defendants' and
the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same.
iii. When the defendants wanted to get patta in respect of the suit
property, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
iv. The suit is also barred by non-joinder of necessary parties namely
the Government. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed
the following issues:
i. Whether the suit property was assigned to the plaintiff by the
Government of Tamil Nadu?
ii. Whether the plaintiff has absolute right over the suit property?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction as prayed for?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
iv. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
7. In the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and one
another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. The defendants 2 and 3
examined themselves and one another witness and marked Ex.B1 to
Ex.B9. Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were also marked.
8. After full contest, the learned Trial Court Judge, vide his
decree and judgment dated 18.02.2014, dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiff on the following grounds:
i. The plaintiff has not produced the assignment patta issued in his
favour.
ii. Though the plaintiff during the course of cross examination, had
deposed that he lost the assignment patta due to a fire accident in
his house, he did not take steps to procure the Government record.
iii. The plaintiff had contended that he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property right from the date of assignment of
patta in his favour.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
iv. However, he has filed the kist receipts only for the years 1987,
1989, 1990 to 1993.
v. A perusal of patta (Ex.A1) shows that Patta number 77 is in
respect of other properties and there is no clinching evidence to
show that Patta number 77 was also assigned in respect of the suit
property during the year 1987 and 1988.
9. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the Trial
Court Judge, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.56/2014 before the I
Additional Sub Judge, Villupuram. The learned I Additional Sub Judge,
Villupuram on considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced
on both sides, upheld the findings recorded by the Trial Court, vide her
decree and judgment dated 31.08.2016, as against which the present
second appeal is filed.
10. Notice of motion was ordered on 08.01.2018 and the
second appeal has not been admitted so far.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
11. Heard Mr.R.Dhamodaran, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.M.Muruganantham, learned counsel appearing for the first
Respondent.
12. Mr.R.Dhamodaran, learned Counsel for the appellant
would contend that since the appellant / plaintiff had lost his assignment
patta issued by the Government, he could not produce the same. It is
also his contention that both the Courts below had not properly analysed
the other documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and he prayed
for allowing the present second appeal.
13. Per contra, Mr.M.Muruganantham, learned counsel
appearing for the first Respondent contended that both the Courts below
by their well reasoned judgments had dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiff and therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with
the same.
14. The specific contention of the plaintiff is that the suit
property has been assigned in his favour by the Government of Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
Nadu. In order to substantiate the same, the plaintiff has examined
himself as P.W.1. He had also relied on the computer patta bearing
number 77 (Ex.A1). A perusal of the Computer patta (Ex.A1) shows that
the Patta number 77 is in respect of various properties. According to the
plaintiff, it includes the suit property also. The plaintiff in the plaint has
not stated that he lost the original patta issued by the Government of
Tamil Nadu. On the contrary, during the course of cross examination, he
had deposed that he lost the assignment patta in a fire accident.
However, the plaintiff has not chosen to get the copy of the patta from
the Government or examine the Government officials to prove that the
suit property was assigned in his favour.
15. It is also relevant to point out that the date of issuance of
patta was not indicated in the plaint. Though the plaintiff has produced
the kist receipts (Ex.A2 to Ex.A7) for the years 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992,
1993 and 2009, he has not filed the kist receipts for the period from 1977
to 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1994 and till the filing of the suit. According to
the plaintiff, the suit property is an agricultural land and he has been in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
possession of the same by cultivating crops. However, he did not adduce
the Adangal extract to show his possession over the suit property. The
plaintiff who has filed the suit for declaration of title should prove his
case to the hilt. Since both the Courts below had properly analysed the
evidence on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
In fact, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present
second appeal.
16. In the result,
i. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
ii. The decree and judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed in A.S.No.
56/2014, on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Villupuram.
iii. The suit in O.S.No.316/2009, on the file of the Principal District
Munsif, Ulundurpet, is dismissed with costs.
20.02.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
vum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
To
1. The I Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.
2. The Principal Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
R. HEMALATHA, J.
vum
S.A.No.739 of 2017 and
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:31 pm )
