The Revenue Inspector Vs Sethuraman Chettiar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Revenue Inspector Vs Sethuraman Chettiar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal disposed of with remand to the Trial Court; plaintiff permitted to amend pleadings and prayer and to file additional documents; trial court directed to complete the suit within one year of receiving the Judgment copy; Government not to disturb plaintiff's possession till then; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the disputed site was classified as Natham, in which event the Government would have no power to disturb the plaintiff's possession of the land. +1 more

Court's answer

Until completion of the retrial, the Government shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiff; no costs awarded.

Ratio / Principle

Since the Government disputes the very Natham classification, the plaintiff who filed suit for bare injunction only ought to seek declaration and injunction; liberty is granted to amend the prayer for declaration and injunction.

Key takeaways

The Second Appeal is disposed of and the case is remitted back to the Trial Court.ratio¶28
The learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate at Thirumayam is directed to complete the suit within a period of One year from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) by the Revenue Inspector and the State of Tamil Nadu against the Sub Court, Pudukottai judgment dated 29.04.2002 in A.S No.33 of 2000, which had reversed the dismissal dated 28.04.2000 of the plaintiff's bare injunction suit (O.S.No.160 of 1996, District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam). The plaintiff contended the suit land was classified as Natham, barring governmental interference with his possession, while the Government disputed the classification itself. Holding that where the classification is disputed, a suit for bare injunction alone is inappropriate and the plaintiff ought to sue for declaration and injunction, the Court disposed of the Second Appeal and remitted the matter to the Trial Court, granting liberty to the plaintiff to amend pleadings and prayer and file additional documents, directing completion of the suit within one year, preserving the plaintiff's possession against disturbance by the Government in the interim, and awarding no costs.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 24.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

S.A.(MD)No. 392 of 2012

The Revenue Inspector,

Pon Amaravathy.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its District Collector, Pudukottai.

...Appellants

Vs.

Sethuraman Chettiar (Died)

Muthu Chettiyar ... Respondent

[2^nd respondent is brought on record as Legal heir of the deceased sole respondent vide Order of this Court, dated 06.01.2025]

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Sub Court, Pudukottai, dated 29.04.2002 made in A.S No.33 of 2000 reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 28.04.2000

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

1/6

made in O.S.No.160 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Thirumayam.

For Appellants : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate For R-2 : Mr.J.Barathan, for Mr.M.Rajarajan

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants in the suit to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2002 passed in A.S No.33 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Pudukottai, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 28.04.2000 passed in O.S.No.160 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Thirumayam.

2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants herein and the plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.

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

2/6

3. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.160 of 1996 inter alia praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was dismissed on 28.04.2000. Aggrieved over the said dismissal, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal suit in A.S No.33 of 2000 and the same was allowed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the Government has preferred the present Second Appeal.

The contention of the plaintiff is that the disputed site was classified as Natham. If it is classified as Natham, then the government is not having any power to disturb the possession of the land. But the Government has disputed the very classification itself. If is so, then the prayer of the plaintiff ought to be declaration and injunction. Since the plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction only, then liberty ought to be granted for the plaintiff to amend the prayer for declaration and injunction.

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

3/6

5. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is disposed of and the case is remitted back to the Trial Court. The plaintiff is at liberty to amend the pleadings and prayer and to file additional documents to prove his case. The Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate at Thirumayam, is directed to complete the suit within a period of One year from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Till such time, the Government shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiff. No costs.

24.01.2025

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No

KSA

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

4/6

TO:

1. The Sub Court, Pudukottai.

The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Thirumayam.

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

5/6

S.SRIMATHY, J.

KSA

Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No. 392 of 2012

Dated:24.01.2025

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

6/6