Madras High Court
Rajaraman vs Ravi on 20 January, 2025
2025:MHC:155
S.A.No.615 of 20 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 19 / 10 / 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 20 / 01 / 2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
S.A.NO.615 OF 2017
AND
CMP NO.15230 OF 2017 IN S.A.NO.615 OF 2017
Rajaraman ... Appellant / Appellant /
Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Ravi
2.Sekar ... Respondents / Respondents /
Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
February 17, 2016 made in A.S.No.8 of 2014 by the Subordinate Court,
Thiruvarur confirming the Judgment and Decree dated March 24, 2014
made in O.S.No.51 of 2005 by the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Nannilam.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Arun Babu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1 of 14
S.A.No.615 of 20 17
JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff
against the Judgment and Decree dated February 17, 2016 passed in
A.S.No.8 of 2018 by the 'Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur' ['First Appellate
Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 24,
2014 passed in O.S.No.51 of 2005 by the 'District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Nannilam' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
3. The Suit Property is a Nanja land that belonged to one
Jayalakshmi. According to the plaintiff, he was in possession and
enjoyment of the entire Suit Property for a long time. The plaintiff
constructed a house and a shop on the western side of the Suit Property
and rented out the same. When the government planned to construct a
bridge over Vadakal Mudikondan River, the plaintiff agreed to the
dedicate 10 Kuzhies of the Suit Property for the same. Pursuantly, the
government demolished the plaintiff’s house constructed therein. Now the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 14
plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property excluding the
said 10 Kuzhies.
3.1. While so, the defendants tried to interfere with the
plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property
excluding the said 10 Kuzhies. Hence, the plaintiff issued legal notice
dated March 15, 2005, which the defendants refuted with false
allegations. Then on March 30, 2005, the plaintiff caused legal notice
dated March 17, 2005 to the Sub-Registrar calling upon him not to
register any document alienating the Suit Property. On May 30, 2005, the
defendants unlawfully entered the Suit Property and attempted to
construct a building. Hence, the Suit for permanent injunction.
DEFENDANTS’ CASE
4. The defendants filed written statement denying the
allegations made by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the
plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. On
the western side of the Suit Property, there is a North - South Road on
poromboke land, which the plaintiff had previously encroached. Upon
protests by locals, he cleared the encroachment after agreeing to do so in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 14
writing during a peace meeting conducted on December 26, 2003. The
first defendant purchased 10 Cents in Survey No.117/1 and 5 Cents in
Survey No.117/4 vide Sale Deed dated May 31, 2005 from the previous
owner – Nagarathinam. The second defendant also purchased an extent of
6 2/3 Cents of adjoining land from the said Nagarathinam through even
dated Sale Deed. Their ownership has been duly recorded in the revenue
records. The plaintiff has no right over or possession of the Suit Property.
Thus, the defendants sought to dismiss the Suit with costs.
TRIAL COURT
5. At trial, plaintiff – Rajaraman examined himself as P.W.1
and four other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.5, and Ex-A.1 to
Ex-A.18 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the
defendants, Ravindran was examined as D.W.1 and Sethuraman was
examined as D.W.2 and Ex.B.1 to Ex-B.11 were marked. Advocate-
Commissioner's Report and Plan were marked as Ex-C.1 and Ex-C.2.
Letter of the Circle Inspector, Kudavasal was marked as Ex-C.3, and
‘Field Measurement Book’ [‘FMB’] & Chitta Register were marked as
Ex-C.4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 14
6. Upon hearing both sides and considering the evidence
available on record, the Trial Court concluded that Suit Property and some
more properties were originally owned by Jayalakshmiammal and leased
out to one Nadesa Vanniyar, father of plaintiff. During Nadesa Vanniyar’s
lifetime, he orally partitioned the properties among his three sons,
whereby the said leasehold properties were allotted to his sons –
Nagarathinam and Navarathinam, and they got into its possession and
enjoyment as cultivating tenants paying rent to the original owner –
Jayalakshmi. Navarathinam died leaving behind his wife – Valarmathi.
Then, Nagarathinam purchased a portion of the leasehold properties i.e.,
26 Cents in Survey No.117/1, 44 Cents in Survey No.117/3 and 20 Cents
in 117/4 vide the Sale Deed dated September 29, 2004. Thereafter, he sold
10 Cents in Survey No.117/1 and 5 Cents in Survey No.117/4 to the first
defendant vide Sale Deed May 31, 2005. On the same date, the second
defendant purchased 6 2/3 Cents in Survey No.117/4. Thus, the plaintiff
failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property.
Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 14
FIRST APPELLATE COURT
7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.8
of 2014 before the First Appellate Court, which after hearing both sides
and perusing the documents available on record, concurred with the Trial
Court and dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree
passed by the Trial Court.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this Second
Appeal.
ARGUMENTS:
9. Mr.A.Arun Babu, learned Counsel for the appellant /
plaintiff would argue that the Suit Property was in possession and
enjoyment by Nadesa Vanniyar as a cultivating tenant under original
owner – Jayalakshmi. After Nadesa Vanniyar’s demise in 1992, the
plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by
contributing his physical labour and cultivating it. There is no partition
between plaintiff and his brothers. Hence, the plaintiff’s brother –
Nagarathinam has no exclusive right / title over the Suit Property and
hence, he cannot sell the same to the defendants. The plaintiff as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 14
cultivating tenant is entitled to protect his possession by seeking
injunction. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court failed to
consider the said aspects and the evidence in the right perspective and
erred in dismissing the Suit. The question to be decided in this Second
Appeal is whether the sale of property by owner will affect the protection
available to the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants
Protection Act, 1955. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Second
Appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court and
the Trial Court, decree the Suit.
10. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned Counsel for the respondents /
defendants would argue that the plaintiff was never in possession and
enjoyment of the Suit Property as a cultivating tenant. During the lifetime
of Nadesa Vanniyar, his properties were orally divided among his three
sons, whereby the Suit Property and other properties in Survey No. 117
were allotted to his sons – Nagarathinam and Navarathinam. Thereafter,
Navarathinam passed away and hence, his wife along with his brother –
Nagarathinam was enjoying the said properties as a cultivating tenant.
Later, they purchased the said properties from the original owner –
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 14
Jayalakshmi vide Sale Deeds dated September 29, 2004 and November
16, 2004. Thereafter, the first defendant purchased a portion of Suit
Property and second defendant purchased a portion of some other
property. Second defendant is not related to the Suit Property.
Accordingly, the first defendant and his vendor – Nagarathinam are in
possession and enjoyment of the their respective portions. The plaintiff
has no right or title over the Suit Property. The Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the
Suit. There is no need to interfere with the same. There is no Substantial
Question of Law in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, he would pray to
dismiss the Second Appeal, and confirm the Judgment and Decree of First
Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court
DISCUSSION:
11. This Court has heard on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
12. Ex-A.1 – Chitta does not suggest that the plaintiff is a
cultivating tenant in the Suit Property. There is no evidence available on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 14
record to show that there was a construction in the Suit Property. The
plaintiff sent Ex-A.6 – Notice dated March 15, 2005 to the defendants,
wherein the Suit Survey number has not been stated. Further, it has been
stated therein that the plaintiff owns a building and tiled house along the
roadside. Ex-A.6 does not show that the said building was situate in the
Suit Survey No.117. Further, the plaintiffs sent Ex-A.9 – Notice dated
March 17, 2005 which was received by the Sub-Registrar on April 1,
2005 and it does not state anything about the alleged building and the
house. But it has been stated therein that the plaintiff, his brother –
Nagarathinam, his another brother’s wife – Valarmathi were jointly
enjoying the Suit Property as cultivating tenant, and accordingly, raised
objection for registering any document in respect of leasehold properties
in Survey No.117/1, 117/3 to 117/5.
13. Further, the plaintiff filed Ex-A.2 to Ex-A.5 – House Tax
Receipts and Electricity Service Connection. They were issued for the
years between 1988 and 1995. The plaint was presented on July 1, 2005.
There is no document to show that the plaintiff was in possession and
enjoyment of the Suit Property between the years 1995 and 2005. Further,
Ex-A.12 is a statement dated December 26, 2003 given by plaintiff before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 14
the Tahsildhar in a peace meeting. The said meeting was conducted for the
purpose of removal of encroachment made in Survey No.116 -1 A of
Seethakamangalam Village. From Ex-A.12, it can be discerned that there
is no construction in Survey No.117 of Suit Village. From a
comprehensive understanding of evidence available on record and the
pleadings, it can only be said that the plaintiff had constructed buildings
in Survey No.116 -1 A and not in the Suit Survey No.117, and Ex-A.2 to
Ex-A.5 could only be relating to Survey No.116 -1 A. The plaintiff in his
plaint did not state that he was a tenant under the original owner –
Jayalakshmi. He has only pleaded that he has been in long possession and
enjoyment of the Suit Property. There is nothing available on record to
show that the plaintiff was a cultivating tenant.
14. On the other hand, the original owner – Jayalakshmi had
executed Sale Deed in favour of Navarathinam [defendants’ vendor] and
Valarmathi in respect of Survey No.117 including Suit Property.
Thereafter, Navarathinam sold 10 Cents in Survey No.117/1 and 5 Cents
in Survey No.117/4 to the first defendant vide Sale Deed May 31, 2005.
On the same date, the second defendant purchased 6 2/3 Cents in Survey
No.117/4. Revenue records namely Patta and Chitta are also duly mutated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 14
in the name of the defendants in respect of their respective properties.
Hence, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case. Moreover, the
plaintiff filed another Suit in O.S.No.28 of 2008 impleading his brother,
brother’s wife and original owner - Jayalakshmi seeking partition inter
alia in respect of the Suit Property herein. The Suit was dismissed by the
Trial Court holding that the leasehold properties in Survey No.117 were
allotted to the plaintiff’s brothers – Nagarathiram and Navarathiram.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.7 of 2014 before
the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed. Challenging the
concurrent dismissal, the plaintiff approached this Court vide S.A.No.636
of 2017 which is dismissed today by this Court. To be noted, both the
Second Appeals were heard jointly and separate Judgements are
pronounced today.
15. As stated supra, the plaintiff failed to prove that he was a
cultivating tenant in the Suit Property and hence, he cannot claim
protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act,
1955. Hence the question of law projected by the learned Counsel for the
appellant / plaintiff does not arise at all in this case. Both, the First
Appellate Court and the Trial Court concurrently held that the plaintiff is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 14
not entitled to the relief sought for. There is no reason to interfere with the
same. This Second Appeal lacks Substantial Questions of Law. Therefore,
it is liable to be dismissed.
CONCLUSION:
16. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Keeping in
mind the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition shall be closed.
20 / 01 / 2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 14
To
1.The Subordinate Court
Thiruvarur.
2.The District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate Court
Nannilam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 14
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
S.A.NO.615 OF 2017
20 / 01 / 2025
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 14
