Dismissed¶¶82

V.Thangel (Died) v. C.Dhandapani Naicker(died)

Madras HC10 Jul 2025SA/18/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

2-C patta; right limited to plucking fruits of trees; no title over land or trees; declaration of title; permanent injunction; S.F.No.965/5 Dhali Village Udumalpet Coimbatore District; 79 cents vacant land; joint trial; common judgment of District Munsif Court Udumalpet dated 10.11.2000; First Appeals A.S.Nos.1 & 2 of 2001 dismissed 28.02.2003; abatement on death of respondent M.Jegannathan 12.12.2019; Section 100 CPC second appeal; concurrent findings confirmed; Sub Court Udumalpet; appeals dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; both Second Appeals dismissed with no costs, with S.A.No.19 of 2009 additionally dismissed as abated against the first respondent M.Jegannathan. ¶¶82

V.Thangel (Died) Vs C.Dhandapani Naicker(died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; both Second Appeals dismissed with no costs, with S.A.No.19 of 2009 additionally dismissed as abated against the first respondent M.Jegannathan.

¶¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the grant of 2-C patta by the Government confers any title or ownership over the land (or the trees) on the grantee, or only a right to pluck the fruits of the trees standing on the land. +1 more

¶¶73

Court's answer

The grant of 2-C patta gives the grantee only the right to pluck the fruits of the trees in the land for which the patta was granted; that right cannot be interfered with by anybody, and it confers no title or ownership over the land or the trees.

¶¶75

Ratio / Principle

The appellant / legal heir of the appellant will always have the right to pluck the fruits from the trees so long as the trees are standing in the said land.

¶¶80

Key takeaways

S.A.No.19 of 2009 stands dismissed as abated against the first respondent M.Jegannathan, who died on 12.12.2019 with no legal heir brought on record and no application to set aside abatement.ratio¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C.V. Karthikeyan, J.), common judgment dated 10.07.2025 in S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009 under Section 100 CPC, against the common judgment and decree dated 28.02.2003 of the Sub Court, Udumalpet in A.S.Nos.1 & 2 of 2001 confirming the trial court judgments dated 10.11.2000 in O.S.No.571 of 1997 (suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction by C.Dhandapani Naicker and D.Selvaraj @ Chinnathambi in respect of land in S.F.No.965/5, Dhali Village, Udumalpet — decreed) and O.S.No.635 of 1992 (suit for permanent injunction by V.Thangavel based on 2-C patta — dismissed): HELD, it is trite in law that grant of 2-C patta gives the grantee only the right to pluck the fruits of the trees in the land for which the patta was granted; that right cannot be interfered with by anybody, and the grantee (or his legal heir) may pluck the fruits so long as the trees stand, but acquires no title or ownership over the land or the trees. S.A.No.19 of 2009 stood dismissed as abated against first respondent M.Jegannathan, who died on 12.12.2019 with no legal heir brought on record. Both Second Appeals dismissed. No costs.

¶1

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶7

S.A.No.18 of 2009

V.Thangavel (died)

T.Anandhan

... Appellant

(R3 transposed as LR of deceased sole appellant vide order dated 28.04.2015 in M.P.No.2 of 2015)

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.C.Dhandapani Naicker (died)

¶14

2.D.Selvaraj alias Chinnathambi

¶15

3.T.Anandhan

¶16

(R3 transposed as LR of deceased sole appellant vide order dated 28.04.2015 in M.P.No.2 of 2015)

¶17

4.The District Collector, Coimbatore.

5.Saraswathy

6.Janakavalli

... Respondents

(R5 & R6 are impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent vide order dated 10.07.2025 in M.P.No.1 of 2015)

¶22

1/10

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶25

Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2003 made in A.S.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet in confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 made in O.S.No.571 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.

¶26

For Appellant : Mr.N.Damodaran For Respondents : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan for R2 Mr.G.Ameedius, GA for R4 R1 - died

¶27

S.A.No.19 of 2009

1.V.Thangavel (died)

2.T.Anandhan

... Appellant

(2nd appellant has been brought on record as Legal heir of the sole appellant vide order dated 13.06.2025 in CMP.Nos.851,852 & 854 of 2023) Vs.

¶32

1.M.Jegannathan

¶33

2.C.Dhandapani Naicker (died)

¶34

3.D.Selvaraj alias Chinnathambi

¶35

4.Saraswathy

¶36

5.Janakavalli

¶37

... Respondents

¶38

(R4 & R5 are impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent vide order dated 26.06.2025 in C.M.P.No.866 of 2023)

¶39

2/10

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶42

Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2003 made in A.S.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet in confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 made in O.S.No.635 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.

¶43

For Appellant : Mr.N.Damodaran

¶44

For Respondents : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan for R3 R1 & R2-died

¶45

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶46

These Second Appeals have been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2003 made in A.S.Nos.1 & 2 of 2001 on the file of the

¶47

Sub-Court, Udumalpet in confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 made in O.S.No.635 of 1992 and O.S.No.571 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.

¶48

2. Even before proceeding further, it must be noted that the first respondent in S.A.No.19 of 2009 Mr.M.Jegannathan is reported dead on 12.12.2019 and steps have not been taken to bring on record the legal heir of the first respondent or to set aside abatement. The said Second Appeal therefore stands dismissed as abated as against R1 / Mr.M.Jegannathan.

¶49

3/10

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶52

S.A.No.18 of 2009

¶53

3. The first defendant in O.S.No.571 of 1997, before the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet has filed this Second Appeal. The suit in O.S.No.571 of 1997 had been filed by the first and second respondents herein C.Dhandapani Naicker and D.Selvaraj @ Chinnathambi seeking declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties in S.F.No.965/5, Dhali Village at Udumalpet and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession.

¶54

4. The suit property was a vacant land measuring 79 cents at Dhali Village at Udumalpet in Coimbatore District. The plaintiffs had claimed that the first defendant had been given 2-C patta by the Government for enjoyment of the fruits in the trees situated in the said land. It has been stated that S.F.No.965 is a long stretch and surrounded by poramboke land in S.F.No.964. It had been stated that the trees which are standing on the land of the plaintiffs were given for enjoyment of the first defendant by the Government. The plaintiffs however claimed that they are the owners of the land and therefore, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent

¶55

4/10

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶58

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession.

¶59

S.A.No.19 of 2009

¶60

5. The plaintiff in O.S.No.635 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet has filed this Second Appeal. O.S.No.635 of 1992 had been filed by the plaintiff V.Thangavel who died pending the Second Appeals seeking judgment and decree and permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession. The suit property is same as the suit property which is the subject matter in S.A.No.18 of 2009. The plaintiff claimed right to enjoy the property on the basis of 2-C patta granted to him. It is contended that the defendants were interfering with the peaceful possession.

¶61

Common Discussion:

¶62

6. Both the suits in O.S.No.635 of 1992 and O.S.No.571 of 1997 were taken up together and a joint trial was conducted. In O.S.No.571 of 1997, the plaintiffs claimed declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession.

¶63

5/10

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶66

The plaintiffs had based their claim on the basis of title. The plaintiff in

¶67

O.S.No.635 of 1992 however had also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction who based his claim on 2-C patta granted by the Government. In a common judgment of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet dated 10.11.2000, the suit in O.S.No.571 of 1997 was decreed and the suit in O.S.No.635 of 1992 was dismissed. It was observed by the learned District Munsif that grant of 2-C patta would enable the grantee only to pluck the fruits of the trees, but cannot claim any title or ownership even on the trees or on the land on which the trees are standing. It is therefore stated that there cannot be any injunction granted as against the true owner of the land. Therefore, O.S.No.635 of 1992 had been dismissed and O.S.No.571 of 1997 had been decreed and declaration of title had been granted.

¶68

7. This common judgment was taken on appeal in two separate First Appeals in A.S.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 by the plaintiff in O.S.No.635 of 1992 / first defendant in O.S.No.571 of 1997. Both the Appeal Suits came up for consideration before the Sub Court, Udumalpet. By judgment dated 28.02.2003, both the First Appeals were dismissed confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. It was again observed that the plaintiff in O.S.No.635 of

¶69

6/10

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶72

1992 will have only limited right of plucking the fruits of the trees but cannot claim title over the land and cannot prevent the owner of the land from entering into the land. Therefore, the above Second Appeals have been filed.

¶73

8. As pointed out, the appellant in S.A.No.18 of 2009 / first defendant in O.S.No.571 of 1997 had died pending the Second Appeal. But his legal heir had been brought on record. His legal heir who was the third respondent in the Second Appeal was transposed as appellant. In S.A.No.19 of 2009, the appellant had died and his legal heir had been brought on record. The second respondent had died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The first respondent had also died, but his legal heirs were not brought on record. The only ground raised is that the appellant herein had the benefit of grant of 2-C patta from the Government.

¶74

9. It is trite in law that the grant of said patta would give right only to

¶75

pluck the fruits of the trees in the land for which the said patta had been granted. That right cannot be interfered with by anybody. The appellant /

¶76

7/10

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶79

legal heir of the appellant will always have the right to pluck the fruits from

¶80

the trees so long as the trees are standing in the said land.

¶81

10. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant had applied for grant of 2-C patta again to the appellant / his legal heir Anandhan.T. The Revenue Authorities may proceed further with that particular application and the grant of such patta should be restricted only for plucking of the fruits of the trees which lay on the land, but without any right over the land. With respect to the land in S.F.No.965/5 as given in O.S.No.571 of 1997 the plaintiffs therein were declared as owners of the said land. If the appellant possesses 2-C patta for the said land, he can have the right only to pluck the fruits and nothing else.

¶82

11. Recording as above, these Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs.

¶83

Speaking order / Non-speaking order 10.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No gsk

¶84

8/10

¶85

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶86

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶87

¶88

1.The Sub-Court, Udumalpet.

¶89

2.The District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.

¶90

9/10

¶91

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶92

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶93

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶94

gsk

¶95

S.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2009

¶96

10.07.2025

¶97

10/10

¶98

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common first appellate judgment and decree dated 28.02.2003 in A.S.Nos.1 & 2 of 2001 dismissing both First Appeals and confirming the trial court judgments dated 10.11.2000 in O.S.No.571 of 1997 and O.S.No.635 of 1992.¶¶47
Sub-Court, Udumalpet · 28.02.2003
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.571 of 1997 (District Munsif Court, Udumalpet) filed by C.Dhandapani Naicker and D.Selvaraj @ Chinnathambi seeking declaration of absolute ownership of suit properties in S.F.No.965/5, Dhali Village, Udumalpet and consequential injunction.¶¶53
Prior proceeding
Suit property was vacant land measuring 79 cents at Dhali Village, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District; plaintiffs claimed the first defendant had been given 2-C patta by the Government for enjoyment of fruits of trees on the land.¶¶54
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.635 of 1992 (District Munsif Court, Udumalpet) filed by V.Thangavel for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with peaceful possession, claiming right on the basis of 2-C patta granted to him.¶¶60
Prior proceeding
Both suits taken up together and jointly tried.¶¶62
Prior proceeding
By common judgment dated 10.11.2000, the District Munsif Court decreed O.S.No.571 of 1997 (declaration of title granted) and dismissed O.S.No.635 of 1992, holding that 2-C patta enables the grantee only to pluck fruits of the trees and confers no title or ownership even on the trees or the land.¶¶67
Prior proceeding
First Appeals A.S.Nos.1 and 2 of 2001 by the plaintiff in O.S.No.635 of 1992 / first defendant in O.S.No.571 of 1997 were dismissed by the Sub Court, Udumalpet on 28.02.2003, confirming the trial court judgment.¶¶68
Prior proceeding
In S.A.No.18 of 2009, the sole appellant V.Thangavel died pending the Second Appeal; third respondent T.Anandhan was transposed as his legal representative by order dated 28.04.2015 in M.P.No.2 of 2015.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
In S.A.No.18 of 2009, R5 and R6 impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased first respondent by order dated 10.07.2025 in M.P.No.1 of 2015.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
In S.A.No.19 of 2009, the second appellant brought on record as legal heir of the sole appellant by order dated 13.06.2025 in CMP.Nos.851, 852 & 854 of 2023.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
In S.A.No.19 of 2009, R4 and R5 impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased second respondent by order dated 26.06.2025 in C.M.P.No.866 of 2023.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
First respondent in S.A.No.19 of 2009 (M.Jegannathan) died on 12.12.2019; no steps taken to bring his legal heir on record or to set aside abatement.¶¶48

V.Thangel (Died) v. C.Dhandapani Naicker(died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Thangel (Died) v. C.Dhandapani Naicker(died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Abraham Thomas (Since Deceased) 1.Mrs.Licy Thomas and 2 others Vs Mr. Sunny thomas and another

K.Vijayachamundeeswari and Another Vs S.Uma Maheswari

Mrs.v.Suryakala Vs Mrs.K.Srividhya

S.R. Dominic Vs S.K. Padmanabhan

S.R.Domnic (Died) 1. Reeta Vs S.K. Padmanabhan (Died), Irudhaya Mary (Died) 1. P. Louis Arokiaraj

K.Rathinavelu (Died) Vs Dhanabakkiyam