KANNAMMAL Vs. G PANCHAKSHARA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant Kannammal is the appellant in this second appeal. THE suit relates to 1.35 acres of land in Amur Village (1.10 acres in S.No. 143/5 and O.25 acres in S.No.143/6 aggregating to 1.35 acres). THE suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction. THE suit land originally belonged to one Lakshmana Naidu. He executed a simple mortgage of the land in favour of one Chinna Munusamy on 12.6.1930. In discharge of that mortgage the mortgagor executed a sale deed in favour of the mortgagees son by name Raja-gopala Chetty on 1.5.1937. This Rajagopala Chetty is the father of the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 6. (Originally the suit was filed by the first plaintiff first son of Rajagopala Chetty and the second plaintiff the lessee of the land, but subsequently second son of Rajagopala Chetty, wife of Rajagopala Chetty and his two daughters were impleaded respectively as plaintiffs 3 to 6). It is the case of the plaintiffs that since the date of sale in favour of Rajagopala Chetty himself, and after his death his sons, wife and daughters i.e. the plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 6 were in possession and enjoyment of the land by leasing it to the second plaintiff. While so the defendant manoeuvered to get patta for the land in the year 1961 during survey operations under the Madras Estates Abolition Act. THE grant of patta for the land to the defendant does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs, but the defendant is interfering with their possession.

(2.) AS against this the defendant would contend that Rajagopala Chetty was a Zamindar of the suit village (Amur). The defendants husband Muruga Pillai had been working as an Accountant under Rajagopala Chetty and before that under his father Chinna Munuswamy Chetty for a number of years and for the meritorious services rendered by him as such Accountant Rajagopala Chetty wanted to gift the suit land to him and at the suggestion of Muruga Pillai it was gifted to his wife the defendant has orally in 1952, and since then the defendant has been in possession of the land. In 1954 she leased out the suit land to the second plaintiff. Amur village was taken over by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act, and after Rajagopala Chetty gave consent letter the defendant was granted a ryotwari patta for the land. When the defendants husband died she obtained a loan of Rs. 500 from the second plaintiff the lessee on the understanding that the loan amount should be adjusted from the future Kuthagai (rent) to be paid by the second plaintiff to the defendant for the land. When the second plaintiff insisted for repayment of the amount due under the promissory note he was told by the defendant that the entire amount had already been discharged by adjustment of three years Kuthagai. The second plaintiff declined to return the promissory note. The defendant wanted him to surrender possession of the land and he agreed. But when the defendants men went to plough the land they were obstructed. The second plaintiff with the connivance of the first plaintiff with a view to deprive the defendant of the suit land has filed the suit fabricating documents. The defendant has absolute right to the suit land by virtue of the ryotwari patta issued to her and also by adverse possession. It is further contended that the plaintiffs by their conduct are estopped from disputing the title and possession of the defendant.

(3.) ONE important fact that has to be borne in mind is that in the patta proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act the defendant has been granted patta Ex.B-6 in 1961. It is not in dispute that the defendant claimed patta and she has been granted. But it is not the plaintiffs case that Rejagopala Chetty who was then alive did make any claim for patta. Nor is the case of the plaintiffs that after this death any of his survivors in his family did at any time make any claim for patta. Therefore a natural question arises as to why Rajagopala Chetty or any members of his family did not make claim for patta. Rajagopala Chetty was the Zamindar of the village. Therefore it is unthinkable that he would have kept quiet if really, according to him, the land belonged to him. In fact sub-sec(l) of Sec.15 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, which deals with determination by the Settlement Officer of entitlement of the landholder to a ryotwari patta contemplates a claim by the landholder. The said Sub-section reads thus: '15. DETERMINATION OF LANDS IN WHICH THE LANDHOLDER IS ENTITLED TO RYOTWARI PATTA UNDER FOREGOING PROVISIONS:(1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta under Secs. 12, 13 or 14 as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed'. According to the defendant, far from making any claim, Rajagopala Chetty has given in writing to the Settlement Officer a letter during the enquiry stating that he had no objection for patta being granted to the defendant. A certified copy of that letter according to the defendant is Ex.B-10. No objection has been made by the plaintiffs for marking of this document. There is nothing to suggest that it is not a genuine one. Under Sec.77 of the Evidence Act a certified copy of a public document can be produced in proof of the contents of the public document. The said consent letter by Rajagopala Chetty given to the Settlement Officer is no doubt a public document and therefore Ex.B-10 certified copy can be received in proof of the consent letter by Rajagopala Chetty. A perusal of Ex.B-10 shows that Rajagopala Chetty had stated in his letter that the said land did not belong to him and he had no objection to the patta being given to the defendant. A reading of this document clearly shows that this was given to the final Settlement Thasildar in the year 1961. This would show that Rajagopala Chetty himself took part in the settlement proceedings and he had stated before the Settlement Officer that the land did not belong to him and he had no objection for the patta being given to the defendant. This means, according to Rajagopala Chetty, the land belonged to the defendant. The defendants case is that it has been gifted to her by Rajagopala Chetty in the year 1952. According to the first appellate. Court, Rajagopala Chetty had given the land as gift but it is invalid because as a joint family manager he had no right to give away any joint family land. This is not correct. In Mulla Hindu Law, 15th Edition, page 294 in paragraph 226 it has been stated that: