Madras High Court
Jayaseeli (Died) vs Government Of Tanilnadu on 19 November, 2025
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015 & C.M.P.Nos.9296 of 2024 & 10795 of 2025
1. Jayaseeli (died)
2. Yuvaraja (died)
3. Yoganathan
4. Naveen
(A3 & A4 transposed as appellants
from R5 and R7 vide of this Court dated
20.03.2024 in C.M.P.No.6691 &
6694 of 2024 in both the Appeals) ... Appellants in both the Appeals
..Vs..
1. Government of TanilNadu,
Rep. by its District Collector,
Collectorate Complex,
Erode District, Erode – 11.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Erode District, Erode.
3. Assistant Land Tax Project Officer,
Tharapuram (Given Up)
(Deleted by Trial Court in I.A.No.114 of 2007
order dated 19.02.2007)
4. Padhmanaban
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
5. Yoganathan
6. Deepan (died)
7. Naveen ... Respondents in both the Appeals
(RR5 to 7 brought on record as LRs of deceased 1st appellant vide order
dt.30.06.2021 made in C.M.P.Nos.17695, 17698, 17703, 17706, 17711 &
17713/2018 in both the Appeals)
COMMON PRAYER : Second Appeals filed under Section 100 C.P.C.,
to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.54, 64 of 2013 dated
25.09.2014 respectively, by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Erode District, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the II
Additional District Munsif, Erode, in O.S.No.326 of 2005, dated
17.02.2012.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Chandrasekaran
in both the Appeals
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate (CS)
in both the Appeals for R1 & R2
Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar for R4
R3 – Given up in both the appeals
*******
COMMON JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiffs before both the Courts below have
filed these second appeals. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.326 of
2005 before the learned II Additional District Munisf, Erode, seeking
declaration and permanent injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
2. These two Second Appeals have been preferred against the
common judgments and decree passed by the first appellate Court, namely
I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A.S.Nos.54 and 64 of 2013,
wherein, the appellants in both the appeals have challenged the common
judgment and decrees passed by the learned District Munisif, Erode, in
O.S.Nos.326 of 2005, filed by the appellants for the reliefs of declaration
and for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed and in the same
suit, the fourth defendant filed counter claim and the said counter claim
was allowed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the
trial court, allowing the counter claim filed by the fourth defendant and
dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the appellants herein have
preferred two Appeal Suits in A.S.Nos.54 and 64 of 2013 and the first
appellate Court, dismissed both the appeals by confirming the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court. Therefore the appellants have
preferred these Second Appeals. S.A.No.127 of 2015 is arising out of the
judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.54 of 2013 and S.A.No.128 of
2015 is arising out of the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.64 of
2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
3. Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
The properties in R.S.Nos.14940/11, 1941/3 and 5
corresponding to S.F.Nos.331/1 of Avalpoondurai Village, which are
Natham lands. Originally the suit properties belonged to one Muthu,
father of the second plaintiff by virtue of sale deed dated 20.08.1937. The
said Muthu died intestate, leaving behind his two sons. In the family
arrangement among the second plaintiff and his family members, the suit
properties have been allotted to the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff,
being wife of the second plaintiff is also enjoying the suit properties as
absolute owners thereof. The second plaintiff leased out the portion of the
suit property to one Jeyaraj for monthly rent of Rs.15/- and due to non
payment of rent amount, the second plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1212
of 1982 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode, against the
said Jeyaraj and the same was decreed in favour of the second plaintiff on
30.08.1988. Similarly one Rajamal wife of said Jeyaraj has filed a suit in
O.S.No.673 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode,
against the second plaintiff and another for permanent injunction
restraining the second plaintiff and another from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and not to
dispossess her from the suit properties. The said suit was dismissed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
23.03.1983.
3.1. While so, the fourth defendant created unregistered sale
deed dated 11.08.1982 in respect of the suit property and thereby
attempted to get patta from the second and third defendants. In fact the
fourth defendant is residing at Erode and working in Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board. He tried to get patta in his name with the aid of the
revenue officials. Meanwhile, the fourth defendant made an attempt to
disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and
thereby the second plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.529 of 1997 on the file
of the Principal District Munisif, Erode, for permanent injunction and
since the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration, they did not
prosecute the said suit. In the meantime, the second and third defendants
made an arrangement to issue patta in favour of the fourth defendant. The
second defendant ordered to make an enquiry and thereby 3rd defendant
conducted enquiry and passed the order dated 17.07.1996 in
Na.Ka.No.4010/1996/A3 holding that the fourth defendant is entitled to
get patta.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
3.2. Against, the said order, the first plaintiff preferred revision
before the second defendant and the second defendant passed an order on
20.07.1997 in Na.Ka.No.74155/1996/U1 confirming the order of the third
defendant. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.897 of 1998 before this
Court to quash the orders of the defendants 2 and 3. This Court, through
order dated 25.01.2005, disposed of the Writ Petition, by directing the
plaintiffs to seek their right before the Civil Court. The plaintiffs are the
absolute owners of the suit property and they are in continuous possession
and enjoyment over the same. Therefore they perfected title by way of
adverse possession also. The fourth defendant, who has been residing at
Erode, had never enjoyed the suit property at any point of time. Therefore
the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and
mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 2 and 3 to issue patta in
favour of the plaintiffs. The fourth defendant also attempted to put up
construction in the suit properties and the same was prevented by the
plaintiff and hence filed the present suit.
4. The averments filed by the fourth defendant in the
written statement and counter claim is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
4.1. The suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and are not
maintainable in law or on facts. The properties in R.S.No.1940/11, 1941/3
and 5 are in Natham settlement of Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Taluk. It
is not correct to say that the suit properties are originally belong to one
Muthu father of the second plaintiff and he owned the suit property by
way of sale deed dated 20.08.1937. The plaintiffs never were enjoying the
suit property and the first plaintiff is a mis-joinder of the suit. The first
plaintiff has no locus standi to file a suit for declaration and injunction
against the fourth defendant. The plaintiffs wrongly described the suit
property in the plaint. There is no dispute with regard to R.S.Nos.1940/
11 and 1941/3. The property in R.S.No.1941/5 alone is in dispute and this
defendant is defending the property in RS.No.1941/5 alone.
4.2. It is false to state that one Jeyaraj was inducted as tenant in
the suit property for monthly rent of Rs.15/- and the plaintiff filed suit for
eviction against the said tenant. This defendant is not a party to the above
said proceedings mentioned in the plaint. The earlier suits referred in the
plaint are no way connected to the property in R.S.No.1941/5. During the
said period of suits, there was no sub divisions in the revenue records,
which in fact was came into effect only in 1990, when Natham resurvey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
took place. The third defendant viz. the Natham Settlement officer held
enquiry and passed orders dated 17.07.1996 directing the officials to issue
patta to the second plaintiff for the property in R.S.No.1940/11 and
1941/3 and issue patta in favour of this defendant with respect to
R.S.No.1941/5 admeasuring 0.03.0 Hectares. As against the said order of
the third defendant, the first plaintiff preferred a revision before the
second defendant and the same was dismissed by confirming the order of
the third defendant, against which Writ Petition has been filed, which was
also dismissed, directing the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court.
4.3 In fact the fourth defendant had purchased specific
extent, namely, a portion of the suit property in R.S.No.333/1 by way of
an unregistered sale deed dated 11.08.1982 and ever since the date of
purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further he put
up thatched house therein in the year 1983 and was residing there.
Acknowledging his possession, patta was also granted in his favour by the
revenue authorities on 17.07.1996. The fourth defendant is in possession
and enjoyment of the property in R.S.No.1941/5 ad-measuring 0.03.0
hectares from 11.08.1982 openly, continuously and uninterruptedly with
necessary animus and to the knowledge of the plaintiff and others.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
Therefore the fourth defendant perfected the title by way of adverse
possession. The second plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed dated
11.08.1982 surrendered the possession of the suit property in S.No.1941/5
and hence the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any title or possession
over the said property. The fourth defendant is employed in Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board, Erode, and hence he shifted his residence to Erode, but,
he continued in possession of the said property. The boundaries
mentioned in the description of property in O.S.No.673 of 1989 also
proves that this defendant was in occupation of the suit property in
R.S.No.1941/5.
4.4. The plaintiffs were demanding the defendant to sell
the properties to the plaintiffs for lesser price, but, the defendant refused
to do so. Aggrieved by it, the plaintiffs forcefully occupied the property of
the defendant in R.S.No.1941/5 along with their property on northern side
and started to put up construction in the last week of June 2005.
Immediately the defendant filed a petition for appointment of Advocate
Commissioner and temporary injunction and the Court also appointed
Advocate Commissioner and he visited the property and filed report,
which proves that the plaintiffs put up new constructions. The plaintiffs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
had no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the property. The fourth defendant demanded delivery of possession, but
the plaintiffs failed to do so and therefore the fourth defendant, by way of
the Counter Claim, sought declaration and delivery of possession of the
properties.
5. The brief averments of the reply statement filed by the
plaintiffs are as follows:
5.1. The fourth defendant very well know that the father
of the second plaintiff purchased the property and died intestate and the
second plaintiff is entitled to the suit property by virtue of family
arrangement. The suit is not bad for mis-joinder of party on account of
impleading the first plaintiff, as she is wife of the second plaintiff. The
fourth defendant also very well aware of the suits filed against Jeyaraj in
respect of the suit properties. The averments in the counter claim that the
property in R.S.No.1941/5 is not related to the earlier suits and the same
is exclusively belongs to the fourth defendant are all false. It is true that
the fourth defendant created unregistered sale deed dated 11.08.1982 in
respect of the suit properties and attempted to get patta from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
defendants 2 and 3. The allegations that the fourth defendant purchased
the specific extent in R.S.No.331/1 by way of unregistered sale deed
dated 11.08.1982 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property
pursuant to the above sale and he put up thatched house are all false. The
said sale deed alleged by the fourth defendant is not valid and he is not in
possession of the properties. In fact the fourth defendant was employed in
TNEB at Erode and shifted his residence to Erode. He never been in
possession and enjoyment of the property. The allegations that the
plaintiff were demanding the fourth defendant to sell the property, for
which, he refused, is also false. The plaintiffs alone are in possession and
enjoyment of the property. Therefore the suit is to be decreed and the
counter claim has to be dismissed.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit
properties?
2. Whether the fourth defendant is the absolute owner of the suit
properties?
3. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is correct?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of permanent
injunction against the defendants 1 to 3?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of mandatory
injunction against the defendants 1 to 3?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of permanent
injunction against the fourth defendant?
7. To what other relief?
7. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of
the parties, on the side of the plaintiffs, first plaintiff was examined as
P.W.1 and marked 6 documents as Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the
defendants, first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and one another was
examined as D.W.2 and marked 15 documents as Exs.B1 to B15, besides,
two Court documents viz. the Advocate Commissioner's reports were
marked as Ex.C1 and C2.
8. Based on the above said evidence adduced on both
the sides, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 17.02.2012 dismissed
the suit filed by the plaintiffs and allowed the counter claim filed by the
fourth defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred two appeals in A.S. Nos.54 and 64
of 2013 before the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode District.
The First Appellate Court framed the following points for determination:
(i) Whether the Plaintiffs are absolute owners of the
properties.
(ii) Whether the 4th defendant is the absolute owner of the
properties as claimed by him through the counter claim.
(iii) Whether the Court fee paid by the Plaintiff is correct.
(iv) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as against the defendants 1 to 3 as prayed for in
the Plaint.
(v) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory
injunction as against the defendants 1 to 3 as prayed for in the Plaint.
(vi) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent
injunction as against the 4th defendant.
(vii) To what other reliefs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
9.1. The first appellate Court, after hearing both the learned
counsel, by a common judgment dated 25.09.2014, dismissed both the
appeals by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
10. As against the concurrent findings of both the Courts
below, the plaintiffs are before this Court with the present Second
Appeals.
10.1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their ranking before the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank
in the present second appeal would also be indicated.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the suit properties were originally
purchased by the father of the second plaintiff through sale deed dated
20.08.1937. The father of the second plaintiff died intestate leaving
behind his sons. There was family arrangement between the members of
the second plaintiff's family, whereby, the suit properties were allotted to
the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff, being wife of the second plaintiff,
is also enjoying the properties along with her husband. Therefore they are
the absolute owners of the properties. The defendant, who was employed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
in TNEB at Erode, is no way connected to the suit properties, as he has no
right over the same. Earlier the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.1212
of 1982 against one Jeyaraj, to whom, the plaintiffs leased out a portion of
the property and the wife of the said Jeyaraj also filed suit against the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.673 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Erode. The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the tenant
Jeyaraj was decreed in favour of the second plaintiff and the suit filed by
the wife of Jeyaraj against the second plaintiff was dismissed. While so,
the fourth defendant created unregistered sale deed dated 11.08.1982 and
based on the same attempted to get patta in his favour and the revenue
authorities also inclined to grant patta to him based on the said document.
Therefore the plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities and the third
defendant viz. the Assistant Settlement Officer conducted enquiry and
passed orders on 17.07.1996 that the fourth defendant is entitled to get
patta. The said order was challenged by the plaintiffs through Revision
before the second defendant, who also confirmed the order of the third
defendant and hence the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.897 of
1998 before this Court. This Court, vide its order dated 25.01.2005,
directed the second plaintiff to approach the Civil Court and thereby they
filed the present suit for declaration. The plaintiffs are in possession and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
enjoyment of the suit properties and the fourth defendant is no way
connected to the properties and he only relying upon the unregistered
document dated 11.08.1982, which cannot be relied upon for any purpose.
11.1. The trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in a proper perspective
and erroneously dismissed the suit. The fourth defendant, while filing the
written statement, also filed counter claim, claiming that he is entitled to
the suit property by virtue of patta and he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the property and the plaintiffs encroached the properties and
thereby prayed for recovery of possession. The trial Court without
considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, dismissed the suit and
decreed the counter claim, in favour of the fourth defendant, only relying
on the fourth defendant's evidence. Therefore the plaintiffs have preferred
appeals in A.S.Nos.54 and 64 of 2013. The first appellate Court also
without considering the valid grounds raised by the appellants/plaintiffs
erroneously dismissed the appeals by confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. Therefore the plaintiffs are before this Court and
the second appeals have to be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
12. The learned counsel for the fourth defendant would
submit that the plaintiffs have not filed any documents to prove their
ownership. They are claiming that the property belong to the father of the
second plaintiff, who purchased the property through sale deed dated
20.08.1937, but the same was not produced either before the trial Court or
before the first appellate Court, to substantiate their claim. The properties
situated in R.S.No.1941/5 SF No.331/1 ad-measuring an extent of 0.03.0
hectares is exclusively belong to the fourth defendant and he has not
claimed any right over the properties situated in S.Nos.1940/11 and
1941/3. The defendants purchased the properties in R.S.No.1941/5 from
the second plaintiff through unregistered sale deed dated 11.08.1982 and
the possession was handed over to the fourth defendant from the date of
sale itself and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The
plaintiffs, taking advantage of the fact that the fourth defendant was
working in TNEB at Erode, forcibly encroached the properties and
attempted to put up construction, despite the purchase made by the fourth
defendant. The plaintiffs have started construction and this Court
appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features
of the property. The Advocate Commissioner also inspected the property
and filed report, as per which, new constructions were raised engaging
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
construction workers. Therefore the fourth defendant prayed in the
counter claim to declare that the properties are belongs to him and the
trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced on both the sides, rightly
dismissed the suit an decreed the counter claim by appreciating the patta
issued by the revenue authorities in favour of the fourth defendant,
recognising his possession on the same. The issuance of patta was
challenged by the plaintiffs through revision before the second defendant,
who also confirmed the entire order of the third defendant and thereafter
the plaintiff challenged the same before this Court through Writ Petition
and this Court disposed of the same by directing the plaintiffs to approach
the Civil Court. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiffs and decreed the counter claim filed by the fourth defendant. As
against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants
have preferred appeals and the first appellate Court dismissed both the
appeals by correctly applying the law and appreciating the facts.
12.1. Both the Courts below have decreed the counter claim
based on the contents of Ex.B6, which can be taken for collateral purpose
to prove possession. Admittedly the suit properties are Natham lands and
the fourth defendant obtained patta in the year 1996 itself. Therefore both
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
the Court have correctly applied the law and decreed the counter claim in
favour of the fourth defendant. Hence the second appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
14. In this case, the plaintiffs have filed suit for the relief
of declaration and permanent injunction against the fourth defendant.
According to the plaintiffs, originally the suit properties belonged to
father of the second plaintiff namely Muthu through sale deed dated
20.08.1937 and thereafter the second plaintiff is entitled to the suit
properties by way of family arrangement and the plaintiffs are in
possession and enjoyment of the properties.
15. According to the fourth defendant he purchased the
property through unregistered sale deed from the second plaintiff and
from the date of purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of the
property and based on his possession, patta was also granted in favour of
the fourth defendant, which was challenged by the plaintiffs and they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
have not succeeded in their attempts. Therefore the fourth defendant is in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The fourth
defendant was working in TNEB at Erode and taking advantage of his
absence, the plaintiffs encroached the property and therefore he filed the
counter claim for declaration of his rights over the suit property.
16. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs failed to prove the purchase of properties by his father through
the sale deed dated 20.08.1937 and after his demise, through family
arrangement, they got the properties and there is no evidence to prove the
same and hence they are not entitled to the relief of declaration, whereas,
the fourth defendant has proved that the second plaintiff sold the property
to him through unregistered sale deed dated 11.08.1982 and based on the
same he obtained patta from the third defendant and he has been in
possession and enjoyment of the property. After considering the Advocate
Commissioner's report, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs put up construction recently and the fourth defendant, based on
the sale deed, has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties and
thereby the revenue authorities have also given patta to him and therefore
dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim in favour of the fourth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
defendant.
17. The first appellate Court also after analysing the evidence
on records including the judgement of the trial Court, came to the
conclusion that the second plaintiff failed to prove the fact that through
family arrangement he got the properties and also failed to include all the
legal heirs of his father Muthu. The fourth defendant purchased the
properties in year 1982 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of
the properties and based on his possession, the revenue authorities
granted patta to him. In the earlier suit in O.S.No.673 of 1989 filed by the
plaintiffs, it has been mentioned that the property in R.S.No.1941/5 as one
of the boundaries in the description of the property, which itself will
prove the fact that the property was in possession and enjoyment of the
fourth defendant. Even though the fourth defendant relied on the
document, which is unregistered sale deed and unstamped, already stamp
duty penalty was paid and therefore it can be relied on for collateral
purpose. Therefore the first appellate Court dismissed the appeals filed by
the plaintiffs, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
18. This Court perused the suit already filed by the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.673 of 1989, wherein, in the description of the
property, the land of the fourth defendant in R.S.No.1941/5 has been
shown as one of the boundaries and the fourth defendant also obtained
patta for the same in his favour. The grant of patta by the third defendant
in favour of the fourth defendant was challenged by the plaintiffs before
second defendant, who confirmed the order of the third defendant and
again the plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of Writ Petition
and this Court directed the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court.
19. Further the Commissioner's report also clearly shows
that the plaintiffs raised new construction in the disputed property and on
the date of inspection by the Commissioner, the construction work was
going on. Therefore the Courts below have correctly appreciated the facts
and the evidence.
20. This Court, while admitting the Second Appeal,
formulated the following substantial questions of law in both the Second
Appeals:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
a. Whether the judgment and decree of both the Courts below
are sustainable when the alleged title document Ex.B6, dated 11.08.1982
is an un-registered document, which is compulsorily to be registered as
per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908?
b. Whether the judgment and decree of both the Courts below
are right in dismissing the suit of these appellants and on contrary,
decreeing the counter claim of the fourth respondent/fourth defendants
based on the patta obtained by him in the year 1986 when he was not in
possession of the same, especially when the land was classified as
Natham?
21. As far as the first substantial question of law is
concerned, the Courts below have referred to the document Ex.B6 dated
11.08.1982, which is unregistered document and it has to be compulsorily
registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. It is true that
as per Section 54 of Transfer of Properties Act and under Section 17 of
the Indian Registration Act, the sale deed for more than Rs.100/- has to be
compulsorily registered. In the present case, according to the fourth
defendant, he purchased the property from the second plaintiff through an
unregistered sale deed dated 11.08.1982, which is marked as Ex.B6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
Though the fourth defendant is relying upon the said sale deed, due to non
registration of the document, it cannot be taken as a document for the title
of the properties. However, the fourth defendant has paid stamp duty
penalty and therefore the said document can be relied upon for collateral
purpose to prove the possession. The Courts below have not granted the
relief to the fourth defendant only based on the said sale deed, which was
only considered as a proof for possession of the fourth defendant.
Therefore the Courts below have relied on the document only for
possession and not for the title of the properties.
22. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants
relied on the following judgments:
1. (2007) 6 SCC 186 (Suraj Bhan and Ors. vs. Financial
Commissioner and Ors)
2. MANU/SC/1213/2025 (Ramesh Chand (D) thr. L.Rs. vs. Suresh
Chand and Ors.)
3. S.A.No.781 of 2007 dated 21.12.2010 (Ammamuthu Ammal and
Ors vs. Devaraj and Ors.)
4. S.A.No.2003 of 2000 dated 25.09.2018 (Savari Ammal vs.
Kulandai Thieresu and Ors.)
5. C.R.P.(MD No.855 of 2012 dated 12.09.2019 (Thangamuthu and
Ors vs. A.Jeyaraj)
6. Review Application (MD)No.25 of 2022 in S.A.No.(MD) 265 of
2021 dated 29.04.2022 (Guruvammal and Ors vs. Visveswaran and
Ors.)
7. S.A.No.1028 of 2005 dated 20.04.2016 (Karuppa Gounder and
Ors. vs. Chenniappa Gounder and Ors.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
23. The learned counsel relying on the above decisions,
would submit that if the document was inherently bad then that cannot be
looked into and cannot be relied on for any purpose.
24. On a careful perusal of the above said judgments, it is
clear that if any document was inherently bad for registration that cannot
be cured by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty and if the document is
unregistered that cannot be admissible in evidence.
25. Equally the learned counsel for the fourth defendant
also relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court:
1. (2019) 6 SCC 756 (Hemareddi (dead) through LRs vs.
Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani and Ors)
2. 1962 SCC OnLine SC 41 (Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs. Sampati
Subba Rao)
On a careful perusal of the above judgments, it is clear that
death of one of the several appellants during appeal, non-substitution of
legal representatives of deceased appellant, the abatement of appeal due
to not only qua deceased appellant, but as a whole. Even in the absence
of specific issue, if the Court in another issue discussed elaborately in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
respect of a particular aspect and the parties went to trial fully knowing
the rival case and led all the evidences not only in support of their
contention, but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said
that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case.
26. This Court in its decision in the case of V.Ramesh vs.
V.Nagaraj, after referring judgment of this Court reported in 1996 (1)
CTC 541 (Rajamanickam and 3 others vs. Elangovan and 4 others) and
by relying upon decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in 2015 (16) SCC 787 in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari vs.
Buddha Jagdheeswara Rao) held that even the unregistered document
can be looked into for collateral purpose, provided the party, who wants
to rely on it, should pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the
document impounded as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court cited supra.
27. In the case on hand also the fourth defendant paid
stamp duty penalty for Ex.B6 and thereby as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, such document can be relied on to prove the
possession of the fourth defendant. In view of the above, this Court is of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
the opinion that the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are
sustainable as Ex.B.6 can be relied upon for collateral purpose. Therefore
the first substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
28. As far as the second substantial question of law is
concerned, according to the fourth defendant, he obtained the property
from the second plaintiff through unregistered sale deed Ex.B6 and he has
been in possession and enjoyment of the properties from the year 1986.
The trial Court also decreed the counter claim based on his possession of
the properties. It is an admitted fact that the suit property is a Natham land
and hence the revenue authorities, after enquiry, issued patta in favour of
the fourth defendant and the same was challenged by the second plaintiff
through revision before the second defendant, which was dismissed,
against which, Writ Petition filed, which was also dismissed.
29. As far as patta issued in favour of the fourth
defendant is concerned, it is settled law that patta cannot be taken as a
document for title, however, when the properties are assigned by
Government, patta would be only document conferring title to the
property, whereas, when the property has transferred between parties,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
then registered document evidencing transfer of title would be main
document of title, and patta issued, based on transfer of title would
become supporting document of title of property. Therefore patta may
confer or may not confer title depending upon the nature of the property
and nature of the transaction. This Court, in its judgment reported in 2012
(6) CTC 303 in the case of Kesavan & Others vs. Muthu held as follows:
“9.1 There are many types of Patta and those types are issued
depending upon the nature of property conveyed. A Patta land
means it is the private property which stands in the name of a
particular individual in the revenue records of the Government, in
contra distinction to Government-owned lands, which are
categorised as Government poromboke, reserve forests
poromboke, road poromboke and water course poromboke, etc.
9.2 Whether Patta itself would be the document of title or Patta
would be a supporting document for title, depends upon the nature
of the transaction by which a party acquires title to the property
and the nature of transfer made to the party concerned. The right
to property may be acquired by a party through transactions
covered by Transfer of Property Act. A person may also require
right to property by way of inheritance or bequest, governed by the
law relating to succession for example, Hindu Succession Act,
Indian Succession Act, etc. The third type may be by the order of
the Government or Court auction or by orders of Tribunal.
9.3. When the property is assigned by the Government, Patta
will be the only document conferring the title to the property. But
when the property is transferred by parties inter vivos, then the
registered document evidencing the transfer of title will be the
main document of title and the Patta issued, based upon the
transfer of title will become the supporting document to the title of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
the party. Normally, possession of Patta signifies lawful
possession of the property by person in possession of Patta.
9.4 Origin of Patta would provide some insight into the purpose
for which Patta came to be issued. Revenue is the sine-qua-non for
administration. When the State was ruled by Kings, the King used
to run the administration by imposing Rajbhaga in terms of 1/6,
1/8th or any other fraction of produce from the lands, owned by
the people. For that purpose, the lands were measured and
classified and land records for every piece and parcel of land was
prepared and Kabuliyat and patta became the instrument of
settlement. Patta was issued in the name of the owner or in the
name of joint owners as the case may be. At a later point of time,
after permanent settlement of land accounts, Patta issued are
either extract from ‘Permanent Land Register’ or extract from
‘Town Survey Land Register’ with a Topo Plan. Thus, Patta is a
document issued and used by the Government for the purpose of
collection of revenue. Incidentally, person in possession of Patta is
presumed to be in lawful possession of the property. Patta may
confer or may not confer title depending upon the nature of the
property and nature of the transaction. Therefore, the theory that
patta is not a document of title is not meant for universal
application and it would apply contextually.
9.5. So far as this case is concerned, both parties are rely upon
patta. The Defendants additionally rely upon the Partition Deed.
Having regard to the contention that the properties were acquired
from their ancestors, the Court cannot expect any registered
document to prove the title. Therefore, patta is the prima facie
proof for title in this case.”
30. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2007) 6 SCC 186 in the case of Suraj Bhan and Ors vs. Financial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
Commissioner and Ors, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
categorically held that entry in Jamabandi does not confer any title, which
can only be decided by the Civil Court.
31. In the case on hand, according to the fourth defendant
the revenue authorities have given pattan in his name and the plaintiffs
failed to prove that father of the second plaintiff purchased the property
and through family arrangement the second plaintiff got the entire
properties. Further since the properties are covered under Natham lands,
the Courts below have relied upon the patta issued in favour of the fourth
defendant and declared the title of the properties in favour of him.
Therefore in the absence of any contra evidence, establishing that the
father of second plaintiff purchased the properties and the said properties
were alloted to the 2nd defendant through Family Arrangement and they
are in possession, the decision of the trial Court cannot be faulted. Based
on the possession, patta has been granted to the fourth defendant and the
same was also admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore the trial Court
dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim. Both the Courts are
right in dismissing the suit and declaring title in favour of the fourth
defendant based on the patta issued to him. Thus the second substantial
question of law is answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
32. In the result, these Second Appeals failed and the
same are dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
19.11.2025
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
cgi / mjs
To
1. The District Collector, Collectorate Complex, Erode District.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.
3. I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode District.
4. II Additional District Munsif, Erode,
5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
S.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2015
P.DHANABAL, J.
cgi / mjs
Pre-Delivery Judgment in
S.A.NoS.127 and 128 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015 & C.M.P.Nos.9296 of 2024 & 10795 of 2025
19.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
