ELLAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are appellants. The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the second defendant, Tahsildar, restraining him from proceeding further with the notice issued, under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, marked as Ex. A. 14, corresponding to Ex. B. 7. The said suit was decreed by the trial court. However, the first appellate court has reversed the same by dismissing the suit, as against which, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs, on the basis of purchase from various documents, namely, registered sale deed, executed on 05. 01. 1971, marked as Ex. A. 4, in respect of 54 cents in S. No. 234/3 and 12 cents in S. No. 234/15. In the sale deed, dated 21. 12. 1972, marked as Ex. A. 5, in respect of 34 cents in S. No. 234/3, apart from another sale deed, executed on 12. 09. 1975, marked as Ex. A. 1, in respect of S. No. 234/3, relating to 0. 7 cents of lands. The case of the plaintiffs is that the said property, which included a larger extent of 12. 8 acres, in Nandhiyalam Village, Walajah Taluk, N. A. A. Dt, comprised in S. No. 234/3, which was categorised as Gramanatham, originally belonged to Manicka Mudaliar and Govindasamy Mudaliar, sons of Kumarasamy Mudaliar. It is seen that under sale deed, executed by them on 12. 09. 1934, marked as Ex. A. 8, the said Manicka Mudaliar and Govindasmay Mudaliar have sold the said lands, in favour of Marimuthu Ammal, who in turn has sold under Ex. A. 7, sale deed, dated 05. 07. 1947 to Arumuga Nadar, that was the sale deed, in respect of 54 cents in S. No. 234/3, apart from other land. It is the said Arumuga Nadar, who is said to have sold the said 54 cents in S. No. 234/3 to the plaintiffs on 05. 01. 1971.

(3.) THUS, according to the plaintiffs, all the properties were purchased by themselves and their predecessors in title and they have been in continuous enjoyment and possession. The plaintiffs are claiming to be the legal heirs of Sanjeevi Pandithar, who was the sole plaintiff in the suit, who was made as 3rd respondent in the appeal, since his whereabouts were not known for more than the statutory period. On the side of the plaintiffs, the said documents have been marked, apart from examining 4 witnesses. However, it has been the case of the defendants, that while admittedly, the lands have been classified as Gramanatham Poromboke, but the plaintiffs are not using the property as house sites, but using the same for agricultural purposes and therefore, the property can no more remain as Gramanatham and on that basis, the plaintiffs have been deemed to be the encroachers and by invoking the powers under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, notice under Section 6 was issued to point out that from the total extent of 5. 18 acres in S. No. 234/3, the plaintiff was stated to have encroached an extent of 0. 25 acres, by using agricultural operation. The said notice also states the nature of the property as Gramanatham. D. W. 1 and D. W. 2, who are the officials of respondents examined as witnesses have also admitted that these properties are Gramanatham, but their defence is that they were forced to invoke the powers, under the Land Encroachment Act, on the basis that the plaintiffs have started using it for other purposes, namely, agricultural operation.