Madras High Court
Subramanian vs Thirugnanam on 26 September, 2025
S.A.(MD)No.142 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 20.08.2025
Pronounced on : 26.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A.(MD)No.142 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3767 of 2018
Subramanian
S/o. Velu Thevar, Kalanivasal Village,
Peravoorani Taluk,
Pattukkottai Munsif. ... Appellant/Respondent /Defendant
Vs.
Thirugnanam
S/o. Rengasamy Thevar,
Kalanivasal Village,
Peravoorani Taluk,
Pattukkottai Munsif. ... Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff
PRAYER in SA: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C.,
against the Judgment and decree dated 13.11.2017 made in A.S.No.41 of
2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court Pattukkottai, reversing the
Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2007 made in O.S. No.189 of 2005 the
file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.142 of 2018
PRAYER in CMP:
To stay the operation of the Judgment and decree dated 13.11.2017
made in A.S.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court
Pattukkottai reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2007 made
in O.S.No.189 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Appellant : Mr.S.Rajasekar, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.K.Vijayaragavan, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant challenging
the judgment dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Subordinate Court,
Pattukottai in A.S. No. 41 of 2011, which reversed the judgment and
decree of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai, dated 31.07.2007 in O.S.
No. 189 of 2005.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their
respective ranks as assigned in the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
4. The brief and necessary facts for the disposal of this second
appeal are set out below: The plaintiff claims that the entire extent of
land measuring 2 acres and 88 cents in Survey No.167/3 originally
belonged to his family, with the revenue records standing in the name of
his grandfather, Chinniah Devar @ Periya Thambi Devar. However, due
to an error, the name of the defendant’s father, Velu Devar, was
subsequently entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff further states
that, following the alienation of certain portions of the larger extent by
his father, Rengasamy Thevar, he claims ownership and possession of the
suit property, presently comprised in Survey No.167/3A2, measuring 12
ares (equivalent to 30 cents). Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks a
declaration of title and a consequential injunction.
5. The defendant, while denying the plaintiff’s claim, asserted that
his father had also been in enjoyment of the suit property and that, during
the updation of the revenue records, his name was included along with
those of others. The defendant further raised a plea of adverse
possession.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
6. At the time of admitting the second appeal on 06.06.2018 this
court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration
which are extracted verbatim below:
(a) Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate
court below is vitiated for non-consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence in proper perspective?
(b) Whether the first appellate court below had erred in
adverse interpretation on R.S.R. Records as against the defendant
when the plaintiff himself admitted the title and possession of
defendant’s father over the suit property through R.S.R. records?
(c) Whether the first appellate court below had come to the
conclusion that the plaintiff has valid title and is in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the suit property after considering the
correct perspective ?
(d) Whether the first appellate court below has jurisdiction
to decide the title and possession regarding land holder and
Melvaramdars under the Cultivating Tenants Act?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
7. On the plaintiff’s side, reliance was placed upon the sale deed
dated 01.05.1956 (Ex. A1), executed by his father, Rengasamy Devar,
wherein the northern boundary is described as land belonging to the
plaintiff’s father. In addition, supporting documents such as the mortgage
deed (Ex. A2), discharge receipt (Ex. A3), family partition deed (Ex.
A4), and power of attorney deed (Ex. A5) were also produced. These
documents also proved that the plaintiff’s father owned land situated to
the north of the property conveyed under Ex. A1.
8. On the side of the defendant, reliance was placed on the fact
that his father’s name was included in Joint Patta No.286, supported by
the production of certain kist receipts. However, it was noted that some
of these receipts pertained to Patta No.782, which bore no relevance to
the suit property. Crucially, no pre -UDR documents were filed to
establish that the defendant’s predecessor had been in possession or
enjoyment of the property. Although a plea of adverse possession was
raised, such a claim requires an admission of the true owner’s title. In the
present case, there is no material on record to demonstrate adverse
possession in derogation of the plaintiff’s title.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
9. With respect to substantial question of law No.4, the defendant
raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the civil court by invoking the
bar under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955,
contending that the matter fell exclusively within the purview of the
authorities constituted under the said Act.
10. It is well settled in law that Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu
Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, bars the jurisdiction of the
civil court in respect of matters expressly entrusted to the statutory
authorities constituted under the Act. These matters include the
determination of the existence of a tenancy, eviction or restoration of
possession of cultivating tenants, deposit of rent, fixation of fair rent, and
other allied issues falling within the scope of the Act.
11. The Act is primarily intended to protect the interests of
cultivating tenants who personally engage in agricultural labour.
Consequently, the jurisdiction conferred upon the statutory authorities
under the Act is limited to matters strictly relating to tenancy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
12. However, the present case does not involve issues of tenancy
rights, eviction, or rent, but rather concerns the question of title and
ownership of the land. The determination of title falls exclusively within
the jurisdiction of the civil courts and is not barred by Section 6 of the
Act. This legal position is further reinforced by the Board Standing
Orders, which provide that in cases involving serious disputes over title,
the patta-issuing authority must act only on the basis of a declaratory
decree passed by a competent civil court. This principle is also reflected
in Ex. A8, wherein the parties were directed to have their respective
rights adjudicated by the civil court.
13. Therefore, the courts below were justified in entertaining the
suit as one involving a dispute over title, and the defendant’s plea of a
statutory bar under the tenancy legislation is untenable.
14. Upon a careful examination of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-
reasoned judgment and decree of the first appellate court. The findings of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
the appellate court, holding that the plaintiff has established valid title
and possession over the suit property, are supported by evidence and do
not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity.
15. Accordingly, this Second Appeal stands dismissed with costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
LS
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Pattukkottai.
2.The District Munsif,
Pattukkottai.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
DR.A.D. MARIA CLETE,J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:57:36 pm )
