Second appeal in a declaration and injunction suit over land claimed by the plaintiff under a 1963 sale deed but classified by the State as porampokku later assigned to SC/ST persons. The High Court allowed receipt of a 1901 sale deed and survey register, holding they needed proof through witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
S.A.(MD)No. 38 of 2015 and
C.M.P(MD)No.1304 of 2023
...Appellants
[Appellants 3 to 5 are Brought On Record as LRs of the Deceased 1st Appellant}
Vs.
1/10
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the Judgment and Decree dated 20.01.2009 in A.S.No.295 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2001 in O.S.No.426 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nilakottai and set aside the same and allow this Second Appeal.
For Appellants : M/s. Lakshmi Shankar For Respondents : R-1 to R-4 – No appearance Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate, for R-5
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree
dated 20.01.2009 passed in A.S.No.295 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub
2/10
Court, Dindigul, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2001 passed in O.S.No.426 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the defendants are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.
3. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.426 of 1992 for declaration and injunction. Originally the suit property belong to one Karuppanan who is in possession and enjoyment of the same. After his demise in the year 1955, the legal heirs namely Kamatchi and Ellappan had inherited the property and was in enjoyment as undivided joint property. As some misunderstanding arose, they orally partitioned entire family properties. By virtue of partition, S.No.20/2A admeasuring 3 acres 8 cents were allotted Kamatchi and the property in S.No. 20/2B admeasuring 4 acres 8 cents were allotted Ellappan and they were paying kist separately for their respective shares. The said Kamatchi and Ellappan had
3/10
offered to sell the property in the year 1963. When the plaintiff came to know he approached both Kamatchi and Ellappan and agreed to purchase the property by fixing Rs.200/- for S.No.20/2A and Rs.300/- for S.No.20/2B and purchased through sale deed dated 09.12.1963 for valuable consideration. Thereafter was in possession and enjoyment by paying kist. Further in order to avoid encroachment the plaintiff had fenced the property. While that being so, about the last week of March 1988 the 2 nd defendant along with Alagesan son of Alagar tried to remove the northern fencing in the absence of the plaintiff, which was prevented by the plaintiff’s brother and warned. Inspite of repeated warnings the defendants tried to remove the fence, hence the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.215 of 1988 on the file of Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk by impleading Alagesan and Palaniappan (1 st defendant in the present suit) for permanent injunction restraining from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment and the suit was decreed.
4. Again the 1 st defendant at the instigation of Alagasen and along with defendants 2 to 4 had tried to set fire for the standing cholam crops during
4/10
last week of August 1989 and the same was prevented. The plaintiff had spent Rs. 3000/- for raising the crop. The Tahsildar had high handedly taking steps to evict the plaintiff, hence the suit is filed emergently dispensing notice under section 80. After the witness on behalf of the 5 th defendant was examined, the plaintiff came to know that the assignment to the plaintiff’s vendor was cancelled by RDO on 24.02.1984 in Na.Ka.No.24660 /83. But the said order is null and void, in view of the facts stated above. Since the defendants had they claimed title over the property thereby created cloud over the plaintiff's title, hence the prayer was amended for declaration and injunction.
5/10
C.M.P(MD)No.1304 of 2023 before this Court to receive two additional documents Ex.A.15 & 16. One is a registered sale deed, dated 26.10.1901 and another one is a certified copy of survey and settlement register. The survey was conducted in the year 1887 – 1888. Based on the said two documents, the plaintiff submitted that the property belongs to the private individuals. In such circumstances, the Government cannot assign the private land to the SC/ST people, since it is not belonging to the Government and it is not a porampokku land, but a patta land
6/10
was allotted to the Government College for Women. As on date, the said college is functioning.
7/10
substantiate their claim. The Learned District Munsif, Nilakottai, is directed to complete the suit in O.S. No.426 of 1992 as early as possible. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.1304 of 2023 is allowed. No Costs.
29.01.2025
Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No KSA
Note : Registry is directed to send back the original documents to the trial Court.
8/10
TO:
1. The Additional Sub Court, Dindigul.
9/10
S.SRIMATHY, J.
KSA
Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No. 38 of 2015
Dated:29.01.2025
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disputed land is private patta land or Government porampokku land.
Whether additional documents (1901 sale deed and survey register) could be received and required a de novo trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Pandian
P. Suresh Kumar
Saraswathi
S.Mallika
R.Jeyarani
Palaniappan
S.Srimathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
