STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. MASILAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants herein. THE suit is filed for declaration and for mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property measuring an extent of 4.14 acres in S.No.193, Sorakayalnatham Village. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title as patta lands and the same was used as Kuttai by storing water for irrigation purpose to the patta land and they have been using the property in the same manner for more than 100 years and by paying kist etc. While so, during 1956 after due notice and enquiry, patta was issued by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of three individuals viz. Munusamy, Ramasamy and Lakshmi Ammal. While doing so, the property was treated as Private kuttai and the plaintiffs are the subsequent purchaser of the same by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 16.9.1972 and 3.8.1974 and the plaintiffs have orally partitioned the property during 1986. THEreafter they have been in separate possession and enjoyment of the property by paying kist, by digging well and by putting up ridges. When the plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities for transfer of patta in favour of their names, they came to know that the same is entered as poramboke land in the revenue records and the same compelled the plaintiffs to issue notice to the revenue authorities to correct the same. On the failure of the defendants to do so, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs as stated supra.

(2.) THE claim of the plaintiffs is seriously resisted on the side of the defendants by contending that the property is kuttai poramboke and not patta land and the plaintiffs' predecessor have been, at no point of time, in possession and enjoyment of the same and the patta was wrongly issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer in favour of the plaintiffs without any basis and the same was subsequently cancelled by the Regular Tahsildar by order dated 5.8.1971 and thereafter the suit property was only treated as Kuttai poramboke and the same is so entered in the revenue records.

(3.) THE only point that arises for consideration herein is as to whether the courts below are right in granting the relief of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs more fully on the basis of patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer without reference to subsequent cancellation by the Regular Tahilsdar"