SRIDEVAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.133 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. The revision is filed against the order dated 5.4.2002 in I.A.No.573 of 2002 in O.S.No.133 of 1996.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.54 of 1995 in Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram and subsequently it was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.133 of 1996 in the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram against the respondent/State for declaration of his title and possession over the suit property and for permanent injunction that his possession should not be disturbed by the respondent and their men. The suit property is a portion of Mamkulam Poromboke comprised in Survey No.194/16 of Kalkulam village having extent of 1 Hectare and 19 Ares. In the plaint it is stated that the plaint schedule property old Survey No.2956/1A having an area of 4 Acres and 8 cents was a tank called "Mamkulam" and it was a poromboke land originally. The tank was on the South of channel. When the channel came into existence, the ryots purely depended upon the said channel for watering paddy fields and the Mamkulam fell into disuse and the tank water began to silt and the entire Mamkulam tank became garden land and was not needed for irrigation purposes at all. One Narayanan put up an additional house in the tank bund and shifted his residence to that house. He occupied by trespass the whole suit property having an area of about 1 Acre at a stretch within the said tank and planted various trees including palmyrah, jack, mango, coconut, arecanut and other trees. His trespass was about the year 1925 and thereafter he was in adverse possession of the whole suit property. On his death, the suit property devolved upon his son Chidambaram Pillai, who also planted more trees. The then Tahsildar, Kalkulam also issued two notices to Chidambaram as residing in Vazhavilacheri on 27.2.1961 that he has trespassed in 5.805 cents and 18.165 cents of land in old Survey No.2556/1A, but actually Chidambaram was in adverse possession and enjoyment of the whole suit property. Chidambaram executed a settlement deed dated 22.7.1978 to his wife Neelamma settling the western 50 cents of the suit property and Chidambaram continued to be in eastern half which he surrendered to his son Rajendran. Rajendran transferred all his title and possession over the eastern half of the suit property to the plaintiff for valid consideration and orally surrendered eastern half on 25.11.1987. On 3.6.1992, Neelamma along with her daughter Sasikala sold the western half of the suit property to the plaintiff as per registered sale deed dated 3.6.1991. Therefore, after issuing notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 9.4.1994, the suit O.S.No.54 of 1995 was filed in the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram seeking the above reliefs. Along with the suit the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.196 of 1995 for the issue of a commission under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. and also another petition.

(3.) It appears in the suit and also petitions, the State entered appearance through the Pleader doing Government Work and took time to file counter in the petitions till 22.8.1995. The advocate-commissioner appointed, visited the suit property on 14.10.1995 and the advocate-commissioner also filed report on 17.11.1995. In the mean time it appears, the suit was transferred and taken on file in the Principal District Munsif Court, Padamanabhapuram as O.S.No.133 of 1996 and posted for hearing on 25.3.1996. Time was granted till 4.6.1996 for filing written statement and then as a last chance it was adjourned to 11.9.1996 for filing written statement and since no written statement was filed by the respondent/State, ex parte decree was passed on 18.9.1996.