KILLIYOOR TOWN PANCHAYAT Vs. THANGAVADIVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the fourth defendant in the suit in O.S. No.204 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are as follows:

(3.) The definite case of the plaintiff is on the basis of the partition deed dated 28.07.1101 ME and subsequent documents like revenue records, house tax receipts and the proceedings of Killiyoor Panchayat Union. The Courts below have specifically found that the suit property is in the enjoyment of the plaintiff. The title of the plaintiff was also found in favour of the plaintiff relying upon the document of title produced before the Court. The fourth defendant who has claimed that the suit property is a Government poramboke failed to produce any document. One Jeevanathan who is the President of the fourth defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no other document was produced by the defendant to establish their case. It is in these circumstances, the Courts below have accepted the case of the plaintiff regarding his title and possession. Hence, the Courts below have also declared the plaintiff's title and enjoyment. The Courts below have also given specific findings with regard to the nature of suit property as a patta land. The case of the appellant/fourth defendant that the suit 'B' schedule property is a Government poramboke is not established by the appellant. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Courts below failed to understand that there is a dispute with regard to the correlation and that the whole judgment is, therefore, vitiated as the Courts below have decided the title merely on the basis of presumption and conjectures. The learned Counsel further relied upon a xerox copy of the correlation register which is not filed before the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant tried to persuade this Court to accept his contention that Survey No.405/A has been correlated to resurvey No.198/3 and that the plaintiff has not established his right in respect of Survey No.405/A. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant therefore submitted that the suit claim in respect of Survey No.198/B ought to have been rejected by the Courts below.