survey was conducted only in the year 2004, suit should have been filed within three years from the date of notification under Section 13 of the Act - barred by limitation
Citation
CDJ 2020 MHC 925
Ambalavana and others vs Saravanan
Head note
Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 - Sections 9, 11, 13 and 14 - suit filed for declaration and mandatory injunction – the trial court - decreed - the appellate court - reversed - Hence this second appeal
Court held: It is clear that the plaintiffs, if aggrieved, should prefer an appeal or second appeal and thereafter, they should have filed a suit within three years - the plaintiffs have come out with a vague statement that they came to know of the resurvey only in the year 2004 - The plaintiffs are entitled to agitate the matter from the date of their knowledge. But for that, they should establish that the resurvey was illegally conducted without notice in violation of Sections 9, 11, 13 and 14 of the Act. Then only they will get any cause of action to agitate the matter. Even assuming that they have established the fact, they have avenues of two appeals. Since the plaintiffs have not come out with a clear date of the resurvey proceedings conducted pursuant to Section 5 of the Act, since they failed to examine the official witnesses with regard to notification published in the District Gazette as provided under Section 13 of the Act and since the plaintiffs have failed to prove that no notice was served or that no publication was made by the official respondents through independent witnesses, it cannot be held that notice was not at all served during resurvey proceedings - The Lower Appellate Court has found through cross examination of P.W.1 that the defendants 4 and 5 are enjoying the property by putting up boundaries around it at least from the year 1982. In the absence of any proof that resurvey was conducted only in the year 2004 - the statement made by the defendants 4 and 5 shall be taken into account - Section 14 of the Act, suit should have been filed within three years from the date of notification under Section 13 of the Act. But the suit came to be filed on a vague pleading after a lapse of about 15 years - the findings of the Lower Appellate Court that the suit is barred by limitation is correct and valid - Second Appeal dismissed
(Paras 22, 23, 24, 25)
Cases relied:
V.M.S. Kandaswamy Nadar vs. The province of Madras through the district collector of ramnad at madurai and another [1952 (1) MLJ 804]
Court held: It is clear that the plaintiffs, if aggrieved, should prefer an appeal or second appeal and thereafter, they should have filed a suit within three years - the plaintiffs have come out with a vague statement that they came to know of the resurvey only in the year 2004 - The plaintiffs are entitled to agitate the matter from the date of their knowledge. But for that, they should establish that the resurvey was illegally conducted without notice in violation of Sections 9, 11, 13 and 14 of the Act. Then only they will get any cause of action to agitate the matter. Even assuming that they have established the fact, they have avenues of two appeals. Since the plaintiffs have not come out with a clear date of the resurvey proceedings conducted pursuant to Section 5 of the Act, since they failed to examine the official witnesses with regard to notification published in the District Gazette as provided under Section 13 of the Act and since the plaintiffs have failed to prove that no notice was served or that no publication was made by the official respondents through independent witnesses, it cannot be held that notice was not at all served during resurvey proceedings - The Lower Appellate Court has found through cross examination of P.W.1 that the defendants 4 and 5 are enjoying the property by putting up boundaries around it at least from the year 1982. In the absence of any proof that resurvey was conducted only in the year 2004 - the statement made by the defendants 4 and 5 shall be taken into account - Section 14 of the Act, suit should have been filed within three years from the date of notification under Section 13 of the Act. But the suit came to be filed on a vague pleading after a lapse of about 15 years - the findings of the Lower Appellate Court that the suit is barred by limitation is correct and valid - Second Appeal dismissed
(Paras 22, 23, 24, 25)
Cases relied:
V.M.S. Kandaswamy Nadar vs. The province of Madras through the district collector of ramnad at madurai and another [1952 (1) MLJ 804]
Comments
Post a Comment