SUBRAMANIA PANDIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in As No.216 of 2002, dtd. 28/02/2003 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, reversing the judgment and decree passed in OS No.41 of 1999, dtd. 10/10/2001 by the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi.

(2.) The plaint:-The suit property originally belonged to Uthumalai Jamin. During the Jamin period, the property was registered in the name of the plaintiff's father Navaneethakumar Thevar in patta No.391 measuring about 1.39 Acres. He planted coconut trees and enjoying the property. Later, the property was given to the plaintiff by his father orally. Ever-since, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment. Later, it came to know that 'B' memo was issued in the name of one Sankarapandia Thevar. Due to long, open and continuous possession, the plaintiff prescribed title by adverse possession. More- over, it also came to know that now the suit property is classified as 'assessed vacant land'. So, the suit is laid for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for permanent injunction directing the defendants to grand patta in favour of the plaintiff and for costs.

(3.) The statement:-It is denied that the property originally belongs to the plaintiff's father during Jamin. The property later given to the plaintiff orally. The suit property was never in the independent possession of the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff. As per the revenue records, it is classified as 'assessed vacant site'. Now the Government is taking steps to issue patta to the landless poor. At that time, the plaintiff did not make any objection. Now challenging the same, he filed the suit. The plaintiff cannot claim contradictory right one by way of possession and another by way of adverse possession.