STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. POOVAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this second appeal. Plaintiff, respondent herein, filed O.S. No.200 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsif's Court Kulithalai, for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit treasure, namely, 360 one Rupee coins of Queen Victoria era., and for costs of the suit.

(2.) Material averments in the plaint are as follows :- 360 One rupee coins of the era of Queen Victoria were found by the first plaintiff on 15-12-75, right in the middle of the ancestral family house, which belonged in common to him and his senior paternal uncle's grandson, 2nd plaintiff in the suit. Plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of the said property. The plaintiffs would say that they and their ancestors had been very ancient residents of the village of Inam Pudur in Manapparai Taluk. They had their very ancient ancestral house in the village Natham in S.F. No. 74. The plaintiffs have said that the ancestral house is very ancient one, well enclosed by a compound wall on all the four sides, and none else can have any access to the house. According to them, their common ancestors had hidden the Treasure in the suit property, right in the middle portion of the ancestral house and had passed on the fact to their descendants. Only because of this their sons and grandsons who had divided all other properties had postponed the actual division of the ancestral house and had been keeping and treating and enjoying the same as common and have been safeguarding the Treasure. As such the Treasure and the site are the exclusive and absolute property of the plaintiffs and had been in their own exclusive possession and adverse to one and all including the Government. The compound wall enclosing it has been in existence throughout. It has also been the subject of inspection verification by the officers of the Revenue Department even in proceedings under the Treasure Trove Act. It is further said that in the usual course of their enjoyment, the plaintiffs decided to reconstruct their house, and during the course of the same and while digging the foundation found and removed the coins well preserved in a mudpot on 15-12-1975. Proceedings under the Treasure Trove Act had been taken which had ultimately ended in a direction to the plaintiffs to file the present suit. It is said that except the plaintiffs none else had made any claim and. Therefore, the Government alone was made a party. Cause of action has arisen from 10-10-1977 and from 7-12-1977, the date of the revised order of the defendant and from 7-12-1977 when the plaintiffs got the order directing the plaintiffs to file a suit in regard to the suit property, namely, Treasure hidden in the ancestral property.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, the State admits that 360 Silver coins in a mud pot were found and taken by Gurunathan Chettiar (Second Plaintiff) and the same were equally divided between the plaintiffs. Without giving notice to the Tahsildar or other officials, about the find of the Treasure, they divided the treasure in equal shares. Out of the 360 coins, they have sold 110 coins, and after that, 250 coins were seized from them. In exercise of the powers conferred on him, necessary order dated 12-10-1977 was passed by the Additional Personal Assistant to the Collector, to establish the plaintiffs' right in a Civil Court within one month from the date of receipt of the order. It is said that since the plaintiffs did not file a suit within one month, orders were passed on 29-12-1977, treating the Treasure as ownerless under Section 9 of the Treasure Trove Act. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal to Board. The Board set aside the order and directed the Collector to take necessary evidence. The Collector, after holding such enquiry, directed the plaintiffs to institute a suit and get a declaration of their right. According to the defendant-State, merely because the coins were recovered from their compound, it does not follow that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Treasure. According to the defendant, plaintiffs are not the owners of the property (Treasure). It is said that the plaintiffs ought to have given information about the find of the Treasure, and since they have not done so, they are liable to be punished under Section 20 of the Treasure Trove Act. It is further said that enquiry revealed that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the Treasure and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.