Natham land - though patta stood in name of Defendant, actual possession was with Plaintiffs - Suit property was natham poromboke in which neither plaintiffs nor Defendant can claim title – There was no necessity for Plaintiffs to file suit for declaration .

Citation

CDJ 2017 MHC 994

Manickam vs chinnammal and others

Head Note

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 - Possession  - Whether Lower Appellate Court committed error in reversing decision of Trial Court and granting relief declaration and injunction in favour of Respondents/Plaintiffs, rejecting claims of Appellant/Defendant that description of Suit property found in Plaint was not correct, especially in absence of furnishing sub-division number – Whether decision of Lower Appellate Court could not be construed as judgment in accordance with law insofar as proper and necessary issues had not been framed by Lower Appellate Court – Whether Lower Appellate Court had given a perverse finding that Appellant/Defendant had not proved his counter claim in respect of Suit property.

Court held – Plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of Suit property –Lower Appellate Court took into consideration evidence of witness who deposed that he had produced only patta in respect of suit property and that he had not produced any other document to establish his title over same –Firca surveyor was examined and he had also stated that though patta stood in name of Defendant, actual possession was with Plaintiffs –Defendant had not produced any other document, except patta to establish his title over property, Lower Appellate Court rightly dismissed counter claim and decreed suit filed by Plaintiffs –Though Suit was filed, all documents produced by Defendant were subsequent to filing of Suit – Suit property was nathamporomboke in which neither plaintiffs nor Defendant can claim title – There was no necessity for Plaintiffs to file suit for declaration - Lower Appellate Court rightly decreed Suit and dismissed counter claim – Second Appeals were liable to be dismissed.

(Para 14, 15)

Case Referred:
Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat, HarurTaluk, Dharmapuri District Vs. V.Swaminathan and Others reported in 2004(3) CTC 270
Janakiammal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai reported in 1996(2) MLJ 110
Muthammal (died) and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in (2006)3 M.L.J. 216
V.N.Krishnasamy and Others Vs. E.S.Vasudevan reported in 2015(2) MWN (Civil) 582
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Collector, Virudhunagar at Kamarajar District Vs. Madasami and Others reported in 2012(2) CTC 315
S.RengarajaIyengar V. AchikannuAmmal and another,1959(II) MLJR 513.
A.K.Thillaivanam and another V. District Collector, Chengai Anna District and 3 others,1998-3 L.W. 603.
SrinivasaPillai v. Ragunathan 1983 (I) M.L.J., 159
Mohammed Sulaiman v. MohideenThambi 1971 (84) L.W. 252.

Comparative Citations:
2017 (2) LW 253, 2017 (4) MLJ 6, 2017 (2) MWN(Civil) 59,