M. SEVUGAN Vs. S.P. LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.113 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title and also for consequential permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property, which is 1 acre 16,291 sq.ft. in Block No.11, Ward No.17, T.S.No.451.2 in patta No.627 of Sangai Village, Karaikudi.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in the plaint in brief is that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than the statutory period. So the plaintiff has prescribed title to the suit property. The plaint schedule property is a punja land which is commonly known as 'Poothan Kollai'. The suit property originally belongs to Sivagangai Zamin and the extent of the suit property was 2 -10 -2 'Krukkam'. The plaintiff had 'Varam' right over the plaint schedule property. The suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's ancestor viz., Aladiyan Ambalam, after his death the right devolved on his son Ramasamy and thereafter on his son Subbiah Ambalam and after his death on his son Ramasamy Ambalam and lastly on Subbiah Ambalam, the father of the plaintiff. The lessee of Sivagangai Zamin viz., RM.K.RM Murugappa Chettiar, V.M. RM. Subramanian Chettiar, and Court of Wards Estate Collector of Sivagangai viz., H.S.Shoo Hild issued patta in the name of R.Ramasamy Ambalam, R.M.Subbiah Ambalam, RM.S.Ramasamy Ambalam for fasali No.1301, 1321, 1323 and 1329. The later portion of the suit property was amalgamated with Karaikudi Municipality in the settlement survey. In the survey records it was registered that the suit property was registered in the name of AVM.Palaniyappa Chettiar by mistake. The said Palaniyappa Chettiar had no right, title or possession in respect of the plaint schedule property at any point of time. Claiming right under Palaniyapa Chettiar, Sakthivel S/o. Athappa Chettiar tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the said Sakthivel in O.S.No.129 of 1988 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Devakottai and in the said suit a compromise decree was passed and there was also an injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff aginst the said Sakthivel. On 4.2.1991, the plaintiff had applied to the Karaikudi Municipality for effecting mutation in respect of the plaint schedule property and he has also obtained order in his favour. Tax was not levied in respect of the suit property in the name of Palaniyappa Chettiar, even though mutation was effected in his name. On 23.9.1991 land tax was levied for the suit property. On 27.6.1991 Tahsildar, Karaikudi, also passed an order in order to make necessary correction in the Adangal and Chitta maintained by VAO. Accordingly, necessary corrections have also been carried out in Adangal and Chitta. The plaintiff had paid land tax for the suit property from 1389 fasali to 1410 fasali. On 13.12.1991, the defendants have trespassed into the suit property and committed damage and waste in the suit property. The plaintiff has preferred a police complaint and before the Tahsildar the defendants have given an undertaking not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff in future. The defendants have also restored the barbed wire fencing to the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, on 16.12.1991, the defendants again made an attempt to trespass into the suit property. The defendants 1 to 4 are working in Kuraikudi Municipality and with their influence the order of mutation in favour of the plaintiff was also cancelled on 5.4.1991. Hence, the suit for declaration and injunction.

(3.) THE 1st defendant has filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff has no right, title or possession in respect of the suit property at any point of time. The plaintiff never put any barbed wire fencing around the suit property. The extent of the suit property mentioned in the plaint is not correct. The suit property was never known by name 'Poothuran Kollai'. In O.S.No.129 of 1988, these defendants have not been arrayed as parties. So the judgment and decree in O.S.No.129 of 1988 will not bind these defendants. The documents relied on by the plaintiff will not confer any title in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendants never made any attempt to trespass into the suit property on 13.12.1991 as alleged in the plaint and they have not committed any waste or damage in the suit property. The defendants have not given any undertaking letter before the Tahsildar and have also not restored the barbed wire fencing in the suit property as alleged in the plaint. The suit property originally belonged to AVM.Palaniyappa Chettiar. For the purpose of constructing houses for the people belonging to schedule caste community of Keezhaoorani, South Block of Karaikudi, a sale deed was executed on 10.5.1965 by AVM.Palaniyappa Chettiar in favour of the trustees of Sivaji Colony viz., Subbiah Ambalam and Abdul Masjith. After the said sale deed dated 10.5.1965, from the very next date i.e., 11.5.1965, foundation stone was also laid in Sivaji Colony by former president of the All India Cogress Committee Thiru.K.Kamaraj. But the vendees under the sale deed dated 10.5.1965, treating the suit property as their individual property had executed a sale deed dated 22.9.1980 in favour of one Sakthivel, but no possession was handed over to the said Sakthivel. The said Sakthivel had filed M.C.No.300 of 1981 before the Executive Magistrate, Devakottai. But the said petition was dismissed on 8.2.1982. A deed of cancellation was registered on 15.4.1985 by the trustees of Sivaji Colony. In the mean time there was a sale deed dated 9.10.1980, obtained by the father of the plaintiff from Sakthivel in respect of a portion of the plaint schedule property and also another sale deed dated 10.2.1983 as though the father of the plaintiff had reconveyed the property purchased under Ex.B.3 to the same Sakthivel. But Sakthivel had no right or interest in respect of the plaint schedule property. From the trustees of Sivaji Colony, Sakthivel had obtained another sale deed dated 16.9.1985 in respect of 55 cents in T.S.No.451 (north). The suit property is being enjoyed by the people belonging to Adi Dravidar Community of Keezhaoorani Area, Karaikudi. The plaint was not properly valued for the purpose of court -fee and jurisdiction. The plaintiff has not stated in his plaint how he became entitled to the plaint schedule property. The plaint was not filed on good faith. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.