[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
N.Nagasubramanian Chettiar (Died) vs N.Vittal Rao (Died) on 6 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
S.A.(MD).No.68 of 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.(MD).No.68 of 2007
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.246 of 2026
1. N.Nagasubramanian Chettiar (Died)
2. N.Nagalingam
3. Vijalakshmi
4. Ekambaram
(Appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs
of the deceased vide order dated 24.07.2024)
: Plaintiffs/Respondent/Appellants
Vs.
1. N.Vittal Rao (Died)
2. Rajeswari Bai
3. V.Rajesh (Died)
4. V.Srinivasan
5. Sujatha
(5th respondent is brought on record vide
order dated 24.07.2024)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
S.A.(MD).No.68 of 2007
6. Malarvizhi
7. Minor Sakthishwar
8. Minor Shahth Rosan
(R6 to R8 are brought on record as LRs vide
order dated 24.07.2024)
: Defendants / Appellants /
Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying to set aside
the Decree and Judgment passed by the Principal Sub Judge,
Kumbakonam in A.S.No.201 of 2005 dated 13.07.2006 and restore the
Decree and Judgment passed by the Principal District Munsif,
Valangaiman in O.S.No.15 of 2002 dated 31.01.2003.
For Appellants : Mr. S.Madhavan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Devaraj
for R2, R4 to R6
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree passed by the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, in A.S.No.201
of 2005, dated 13.07.2006, reversing the judgment and decree passed by
the Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman, in O.S.No.15 of 2002, dated
31.01.2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
2. Heard Mr.S.Madhavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants and Mr.R.Devaraj. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the appellant filed the suit
seeking for recovery of possession on the ground that the suit property
was originally owned by his father, who purchased the same through a
registered sale deed dated 18.10.1932 (Ex.A7). The suit property was
originally a vacant site and later a superstructure was constructed. The
father of the appellant died in the year 1974. Before his demise, there
was a partition amongst the brothers through a registered partition deed
dated 09.06.1974 and schedule 'C' was allotted in favour of the plaintiff's
father to an extent of 18 ½ cents.
4. The further case of the plaintiff is that in the year 1971, the
first defendant became a tenant under an oral agreement and was paying
rent of Rs.30/- per month. An attempt was made by the first defendant to
claim patta over the property and this was objected by the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
However, the first defendant managed to get the patta in his favour and
taking advantage of the same, he started claiming ownership over the
property. It is under these circumstances, the present suit came to be filed
seeking for the relief of delivery of possession.
5. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that the
Thoraya Patta was granted in the name of the first defendant and that this
property was, in turn, settled in favour of the third and fourth defendants,
and the third and fourth defendants have thus become the absolute
owners of the property. Apart from that, insofar as the superstructure is
concerned, the property tax is paid by the defendants. Thus, the
defendants were claiming ownership over the property and they denied
their relationship with the plaintiff as tenants and accordingly, sought for
the dismissal of the suit.
6. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that the
plaintiff has established ownership over the property and also that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
defendants are the tenants in the property and therefore, proceeded to
decree the suit as prayed for.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, the defendants filed an appeal.
8. The appellate Court, on considering the grounds raised in
the appeal and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that
there was a genuine dispute in title over the property and therefore, the
plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of declaration of title. Apart
from that, the appellate Court also found that the plaintiff did not
establish that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties. Accordingly, the appellate Court proceeded to reverse the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed before
this Court.
9. When the Second Appeal was admitted, this Court framed
the following substantial questions of law:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
“(1) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in
distinguishing that the judgment rendered by the High
Court in 1972 Law Weekly, 727 dealing with Grama
Natham is not applicable to Natham?
(2) Whether the lower appellate Court is not equally wrong
in distinguishing the judgment in 2000 (1) L.W., 488, since
the plaintiff has not established the classification of the suit
property which is admittedly a house in the village
Natham?
(3) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in
remarking that the suit as framed for possession alone is
unsustainable and suggesting him to file a separate suit for
possession with declaration?”
10. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance
on Exhibits A1 and A7 and submitted that the ownership over the
property has been sufficiently established and the respondents are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
attempting to claim ownership through an illegally obtained patta which
will not confer title over the property. Therefore, it is contended that the
appellate Court ought not to have reversed the well considered judgment
of the trial Court.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents placed
strong reliance upon Ex.B6 and also Exhibits B1 to B4 to establish that
the property is being enjoyed as a owner and there was never a landlord-
tenant relationship and therefore, it is contended that the findings
rendered by the appellate Court is a factual finding and no substantial
question of law is involved in this second appeal and accordingly, the
second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. The case of the appellant is that the tenancy was oral. The
first defendant has specifically denied the fact that there was a landlord-
tenant relationship between the parties. In turn, the defendant was setting
up their right and ownership over the property. The same is evident from
the fact that Ex.D6 was the basis on which such ownership was claimed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
Insofar as for the superstructure, Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 is relied upon wherein
the property tax has been paid for the superstructure.
14. The appellate Court has rendered a finding that the plaintiff
did not prove the landlord-tenant relationship. Apart from that, the
appellate Court also found that the plaintiff was claiming ownership
based on Ex.A1 and A7 and on the other hand, the defendants were
claiming ownership based on the Thoraya Patta and the house tax
receipts that were paid in their names. Therefore, the appellate Court
came to a conclusion that there was a dispute regarding title which
warranted the plaintiff to seek for a relief of declaration of title and not a
relief of recovery of possession simpliciter.
15. The above finding rendered by the appellate Court does not
suffer from any illegality and such finding has been rendered on
appreciation of evidence.
16. One main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that Ex.B6 Thoraya Patta by itself will not confer any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
title over the property. The entire law regarding the classification of
Natham lands and the scope of Thoraya Patta was dealt with by the
Division Bench of this Court in R.A.V.Kovil Annayya Charities v. The
District Collector, reported in 2023 (5) L.W. 616. There is no quarrel on
the principle of law that patta by itself will not confer any title over the
property. However, that will not apply in a case where the patta is granted
by the Government to a person who is in possession of the natham land.
Such a patta certainly is equivalent to a title document insofar as the
person in whose favour such a patta is granted. This position of law has
been reiterated in many judgments passed by this Court.
17. In view of the above, as rightly found by the appellate
Court, both the parties are claiming right and ownership over the
property by relying upon certain documents. Therefore, there is a dispute
regarding the title over the property. Hence, the plaintiff ought to have
sought for the relief of declaration of title and not merely a relief for
recovery of possession simpliciter and more particularly, when the
landlord and tenant relationship itself was not established.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
18. In the light of the above discussion, the substantial
questions of law framed by this Court is answered accordingly against
the appellant and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with
the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court and as a result,
the Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous
petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
06.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PKN
To
1. The Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman.
2. The Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam.
3. The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
PKN
Judgment made in
Dated:06.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 03:25:55 pm )
