P. Muthurajan v. Commissioner of Land Administration
2018-10-22
T.RAVINDRAN
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT T.Ravindran, J. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2014 passed in A.S.No.22 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.416 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law. "(a) Whether the lower appellate court completely missed the vital fact that the suit property is appellant's absolute property by the virtue of title deeds dating more than 40 years back? (b). Whether the lower appellate court, which is final court of fact, is right in not relying on Ex.A4 and 5, in which suit property was described as in natham survey? 3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff / appellant for the relief of declarations and permanent injunction on various counts. Mainly stated, it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property, being the grama natham land and belonging to to him by way of the purchase of the same under Ex.A1 sale deed and as the anterior sale deeds marked as Exs.A2 to A6 also point out that the suit property is only the grama natham land and accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are not entitled to dispute his possession and enjoyment of the suit property and on the other hand, the defendants by way of the survey proceeding, classified the suit property as road poramboke land and accordingly endeavoring to vacate him from the suit property illegally and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for various reliefs prayed for. 5.
5. Per contra, it is the case of the defendants that the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property is grama natham land as claimed in the plaint is false, on the other hand, it is stated that the suit property has been classified as road poramboke land and accordingly the sub-divisions were also effected in respect of the suit property as road poramboke land and following the same, it is the case of the defendants that proper proceedings had been initiated against the plaintiff to disposes him from the suit property as per law and therefore it is contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the suit and the suit laid by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 6. The defendants have also taken the plea that the suit laid by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is found that both the courts below have formulated the necessary issue / point on that aspect and accordingly held that the suit laid by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. As above noted, the plaintiff, in this lis, has impugned that the survey proceeding effected in respect of the suit property, mainly on the footing that no notice had been issued to him prior to the sub-divisions effected in respect of the suit property and accordingly, the sub-divisions effected in respect of the suit property classifying the same as road poramboke land is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and accordingly, it is his contention that he is entitled to maintain the suit against the defendants apropos of the sub-divisions effected as regards the suit property. 7. Materials placed on record go to show that challenging the sub-division proceedings effected in respect of the suit property, it is seen that the plaintiff had preferred a writ petition in the High Court and the same having been dismissed, the plaintiff has also preferred the writ appeal No.2990 of 2004 and the same had come to be dismissed on 09.08.2004 directing the plaintiff to seek his remedy by way of a civil action. Accordingly, it is seen that the plaintiff has come forward with the present lis.
Accordingly, it is seen that the plaintiff has come forward with the present lis. When as per the materials placed on record, the writ appeal laid by the plaintiff had been dismissed on 09.08.2004, granting him the liberty to move the civil court for necessary remedies as regards the sub-divisions effected and furthermore, when the plaintiff knowing about the sub-divisions effected, had moved the High Court by way of the writ petition and writ appeal as above stated, in such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the courts below, the plaintiff should have endeavored to lay the suit in the civil court for necessary remedies within 3 years from the date of disposal of the writ appeal on 09.08.2004. On the other hand, when it is noted that the plaintiff has levied the present suit on 31.10.2007, patently 3 years after the date of the disposal of the writ appeal, it is seen that the courts below are justified in holding that the suit laid by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Furthermore, when the plaintiff has made the grievance that the defendants had been initiating action against him based on the sub-divisions effected in respect of the suit property and also started complaining about the same from 2003 onwards objecting the endeavours of the defendants to dispossess him from the suit property, accordingly, as rightly determined by the courts below, the cause of action for the suit arose even in the year 2003 itself and in such view of the matter, the plaintiff's suit laid beyond 3 years period from 2003 is found to be clearly barred by time.
In the light of the above discussions, the courts below are correct in holding that the suit laid by the plaintiff is hit by the law of limitation and when with reference to the same, the plaintiff has not put forth any tenable cause, other than that he had not been served with the notice before the survey proceeding, however, when after having knowledge about the survey proceeding and thereafter when the plaintiff had also endeavored to challenge the same by way of the writ petition and writ appeal in the High Court, when even thereafter, the plaintiff having not chosen to lay the civil action within 3 years from the date of his knowledge or from the date of disposal of the writ appeal, it is seen that the plaintiff's suit is clearly barred by time. 8. As regards the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property is only the grama natham land and not the road poramboke, as rightly determined by the courts below, there is no acceptable or reliable material placed by the plaintiff with reference to the same. As above noted, the plaintiff has acquired title to the suit property by way of Ex.A1 sale deed and the earlier title deeds of the suit property according to the plaintiff, which has been marked as Exs.A2 and A3 and as rightly determined by the courts below, Exs.A2 and A3 title deeds do not point out that the same refer to the suit property by giving survey number as well as the classification of the suit property as grama natham land. Therefore, it is seen that the original title deeds having not classified the suit property as grama natham land, the subsequent inclusion of the description of the suit property as grama natham in the latter sale deeds, would not entitle the plaintiff to contend that the suit property is the grama natham land and not the road poramboke land. In this matter, it appears that the plaintiff has mainly relied upon the commissioner's report and plan marked in the proceeding.
In this matter, it appears that the plaintiff has mainly relied upon the commissioner's report and plan marked in the proceeding. However, on a perusal of the commissioner's report and plan, it is seen that the commissioner has almost disposed of the suit in favour of the plaintiff by rendering the findings on almost all the aspects and in such view of the matter, when the commissioner's report and plan are found to be ultra vires and without any authority he has given the finding in support of the plaintiff's case, the same cannot be the basis for upholding the plaintiff's claim of title to the suit property. 9. On the basis of the materials placed on record by the defendants, it is evident that the suit property has been classified only as road poramboke land, in such view of the matter, the courts below are justified in holding that the suit property is only the road poramboke land and not the village natham land as sought to be made out by the plaintiff and considering the lie of the suit property, it is seen that the appellant has encroached into the suit property illegally and seeking to justify his encroachment by laying the false claim that the suit property is the grama natham property. In such view of the matter, when there is no material placed on record by the plaintiff worth acceptance that the suit property had been originally classified as grama natham land and his vendors had the entitlement to sell the same by way of Ex.A1 sale deed and when the earlier title deeds as above discussed are not shown to be correlated to the suit property as claimed by the plaintiff by placing acceptable materials and considering the materials placed by the defendants in the right perspective, it is found that the courts below had correctly held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit property is the grama natham property. 10. Knowing fully well that the suit property does not fall under the category of grama natham land, it is seen that the plaintiff has also endeavored to seek the claim of title to the suit property by way of the plea of adverse possession on the footing that the suit property has been in the possession of the plaintiff and his predecessors in interest for more than 100 years.
However, by way of the abovesaid plea, it is seen that the plaintiff has thereby, impliedly, admitted the title of the defendants in respect of the suit property. Furthermore, when there is no material at all placed by the plaintiff worth acceptance to uphold the claim of the adverse title to the suit property as pleaded in the plaint, the courts below are wholly justified in negativing the said plea and no interference is called for with reference to the same. 11. In support of his various contentions, the counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance upon the decisions reported in (Nachammal and another v. S.Murugesan, 2011 1 MWN (Civ) 712) (Rangasamy Gounder and Others v. Valliammal and Others,2012 3 MWN(Civ) 823) (M.Vaithyanathan v. District Collector,Nagercoil,2018 1 CWC 713) (State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the collector, Virudhunagar v. Madasami and Others, (2012) 2 CTC 315 ) (The executive officer, Kadathur Town panchayat v. V.Swaminathan and Others, (2004) 3 CTC 270 ) (V.M.S.Kandaswamy Nadar v. The province of Madras, through the District Collector of Ramnad at Madura and another, (1952) 1 MLJ 804 ) (Manickam (died) and Others v. Devadoss (died) and Others, (2014) 3 MLJ 41 ). The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at the hand. 12. In the light of the above discussions, the plaintiff having failed to establish that the suit property comes under the classification of the grama natham property and that he has perfected the title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and when the anterior title deeds of the plaintiff are not shown to be correlated to the suit property and when the plaintiff has failed to institute the civil action in time as per law, in all aspects, it is found that the courts below are justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit and no interference is called for with reference to the same. The substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are accordingly answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. 13. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.