GADAM NARASAMMA Vs. DANDASI NAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The disputed land consists of one cent of land in Survey No. 503 in village Boragan within Aska Taluk. Plaintiff's case is that the disputed land belonged to the Government and was assigned to her husband who executed a registered sale deed (Ex. 2) on 13.8.1955 in her favour. The Defendants, who are Bauries of the village, threatened dispossession and hence the suit. The defence case is that the Plaintiff husband encroached upon the suit -site which is a village poromboke. On the objection of the Defendants, Plaintiff's husband was found to have mad the encroachment and an order of eviction was passed. No patta has been granted to the Plaintiff's husband and neither the Plaintiff nor her husband was ever in possession. The learned Munsif found that the Plaintiff had a good title. On a finding that she had been dispossessed, he passed a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The learned Subordinate Judge, in appeal, held that the Plaintiff failed to establish a valid title; and even though she proved her possession, it fell short of the statutory period of 12 years and she had acquired no title by prescription. He accordingly dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. Against the Appellate decree the Plaintiff has filed the second appeal.

(2.) MR . Misra advanced the following contentions : (i) the learned Sub - Judge's finding that the assignment made in favour of the Plaintiff's husband was done without following Board's Standing Order No. 21, was contrary to the materials on record; (ii) even assuming that the revenue authorities committed procedural irregularities in the matter of making assignment, the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to declare the grant as invalid; and (iii) the finding of the learned Sub -Judge that the order of assignment is invalid unless it is followed by issue of a Patta, is contrary to law.

(3.) IT is remarkable that the series of decisions of the Madras High Court, which have settled the law that procedural irregularities in the matter of making such grants do not affect the validity of the grants and the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to treat them as void unless the revenue authorities acted outside the scope of their authority were not brought to the notice of the Courts below. It is not the case of either party that the R.D.O., Ghumsur, had no authority to make assignment of village porombokes. So it was not outside the scope of his authority. If in the discharge of the duties, within the authority conferred upon, certain irregularities are committed, they cannot vitiate the order of settlement. It would be worthwhile to notice some of the important decisions in this regard.