A SANKARALINGAM Vs. ARUNACHALA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this second Appeal. THE suit is for declaration of his title to the suit properly and for consequential injunction or in the alternative for possession. THE suit property is a vacant site measuring east to west 10 yards and south to north 23 yards and comprised in S. No. 183/1 (part) in Vellur village natham. THE plaintiff claimed it under Ex. A-6 sale deed dated 27. 3. 1978 and according to him, his vendor Gopalakrishnan got the said properly under a registered settlement deed dated 22. 1. 1947, the registration copy of which is Ex. A-3, from one Thirumalaiammal. THE plaintiff also sought title by adverse possession alternatively. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant/respondents is that the property being a natham properly, vested with the Government and defendants were alone in possession of the property. Further, according to the defendants, the alleged settlement by Thirumalai Ammal could not be true and neither Thirumalaiammal , nor Gopalakrishnan was in possession of the suit property and that the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff was also invalid.

(2.) THE trial court decreed the suit for declaration -on the basis of the abovesaid title deeds Ex. A-3 and A-6 and holding that the defendants were in possession of the suit property on the date of suit, granted decree for possession. But, on appeal, the first appellate court has dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved the abovesaid Ex. A-3 document, he having not examined any attestor to the said document. THE lower appellate court also held that since Ex. A-3 is only a registration copy of the original deed, Sec. 90 of the Evidence Act would not come to the rescue of the plaintiff, on the footing that the document in question was more than 30years old. Further, while the trial court has held that item No. 19 in Ex. A-3 is the suit property, the lower appellate court has reversed that finding by saying that in item 19 in Ex. A-3, the western boundary is described as Perumal Iyengar's vacant site and the eastern boundary is described as Yoganandasami madam, but that "the abovesaid boundary is not in existence now". On that reasoning, the lower appellate court has held that the property described as item No. 19 of Ex. A-3, does not relate to the suit property.

(3.) NEXTLY , the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the suit property being a natham property, vested with the Government and that the plaintiff cannot have the declaration as prayed for. No doubt, the plaintiff also admits that the suit property is a natham. But according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that fact does not mean that the said property is a government property. While considering this point, first of all, I find that even though the defendants plead in the written statement,'as the suit is for declaration of plaintiffs title to a site in Natham which belongs to the Government and vest with the Panchayat should be decided only making the Government and the Panchayat as parties'; , the 2nd defendant, who alone went into the box among the three defendants, did not even depose that the suit property is the property of the Government or the Panchayat. All that he deposed was only that the property was natham. Natham , according to K. G. Iyer's Judicial Dictionary, 8th edition, page 654, means that part of the village land, on which the houses of the Mirasdars are built as distinct from the lands attached to the village. Shortly putting it, they are house sites in the villages. There is no law saying that all natham properties are Government or Panchayat properties. The learned counsel for the appellant cited Chinnath-ambi Goundan v. Venkatasubramani , 49 L. W. 326. It says that in a shrotriem village not falling under the Estates Land Act, the control of unoccupied gramanatham vests in the shrotricmdar. So according to the said counsel, natham docs not vest with the Government or Panchayat. But, there is neither plea nor proof, that the village in question here is one such shrotriem village, not falling under the Estates Land Act. Anyway, the learned counsel for the respondents also could not point out any decision that natham properties automatically vests with the Government or Panchayat. He no doubt cites Rengaraja Iyengar v. Achikannu Ammal , (1959)2 M. L. J. 513. But even there, the decision is that gramanatha m does not stand vested in the Government under Sec. 3 (b)of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari )Act (XXVI of 1948 ). Thus, at any rate, it cannot be said automatically that all natham properties are Government properties. Therefore, I am unable to hold that the suit property is a Government property.