AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sampath, J.—The second appeals and the writ petition have arisen under the following circumstances:
There are four plaintiffs. Munusamy is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2207/92, Manickam in O.S.No.2345/92, Anandaraj in O.S.No.2346/92 and
Parthasarathy in O.S.No.2347/92. There was a joint trial as common question for decision was involved and common judgments were delivered
by both the Courts. The plaintiffs filed the different suits against the Corporation of Madras, which is the appellant in all the appeals and the second
respondent in the writ petition, the first respondent being the Collector of Madras, for a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation of
Madras from interfering with their possession of the property in the respective suits. According to them, each purchased 1 ground 1200 sq.ft.in
S.Nos.31 and 53 part (Old S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B) corresponding to T.S.No.2/1 part, sub divided as T.S.No,2/5 in Block No.15, Aminjikarai
Village, Pulla Reddy Avenue, Madras-29, under sale deeds exhibited as Exs.A-1 to A-4, all bearing date 10-1-1992. They claimed to be in
possession.
The Corporation of Madras resisted the suits claiming that the properties belonged to it absolutely and the plaintiffs have no right. According to
the Corporation of Madras, the alleged patta granted to the plaintiffs was cancelled and the suit for bare injunction without the relief of declaration
is not maintainable. The vendors of the plaintiffs are one Rajalakshmi and Janaki. They had obtained patta in their names. The second defendant in
the suit, viz. the Junior Engineer, Division No.68, Old No.73. Madras Corporation objected to the fence in respect of the lands of the plaintiffs and
directed the uprooting of the stone pillars from the lands on 11-3-1992. There were complaints before the Sub Inspector of Police, K-3
Aminjikarai Police Station. The father of the plaintiffs produced the original documents before the second defendant, who informed them that the
properties in dispute belonged to the Corporation of Madras.
There was a joint trial and common evidence was given. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2207/82 was examined as P.W.1 and the respective sale
deeds, as already noted, were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4. The plaintiffsalso marked the Town Survey Lands Registers as Exs.A-5 and A-10
apart from marking certain letters and certificates.
The trial Court by a common judgment dated 24.9.1993 dismissed all the suits with costs, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to correlate the
properties mentioned in Ex.A-5 and other documents with the suit properties. The trial Court further observed that in Ex.A-5 Town Survey and
Lands Register, there is no mention about T.S.No.2/1 corresponding to Old S.Nos.59 and 64. Further the non-examination of the plaintiffs''
vendors was fatal; the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title over the suit properties by not filing their parent title deeds. Ultimately, the trial
Court held that the plaintiffs in all the suits had neither title nor possession and that the suit properties belonged to the Corporation of Madras, the
first defendant in all the suits.
The plaintiffs filed appeals in A.S.Nos.338 to 341/93 before the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, against the dismissal of the
suits. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2207/92 filed C.M.P.No.1559/93 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC seeking to mark the sale deeds under which
the plaintiffs'' vendors had purchased the respective properties and the copy of the letter dated 24.9.1986 issued to the Tahsildar, Egmore, relating
to the correlation of the properties. The lower Appellate Court by a common judgment dated 17-12-1993 allowed the appeals and granted a
decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in all the suits and also allowed the civil miscellaneous petition for additional evidence. The
documents were marked as Exs.A-16 to A-20.
It is as against the decision of the lower Appellate Court, the present second appeals have been filed. At the time of admission the following
substantial question of law was framed for decision in the second appeals:
Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in granting the injunction when especially the notification made by the government has not been
disputed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, which is a proof for the extinguishment of the title of the private parties even if they had title?
It is to be painfully noted that neither before the trial Court nor before the lower Appellate Court, the appellant corporation condescended to file
any documents or to let in any oral evidence. Before the Appellate Court to get over the ground on which the trial Court dismissed the suits, viz.
that the plaintiffs had not correlated the suit properties to the properties purchased by them and that they had not produced their vendors'' title
deeds, the plaintiffs produced additional documents and those documents were received on the specific endorsement made on behalf of the
defendant Corporation that it had no objection to those documents being received. At least at that stage, the Corporation could have produced the
records under which it claimed right in the suit properties. This opportunity the Corporation let go.
Mr. G. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, for the Corporation of Madras, submitted that an
opportunity should be afforded to the Corporation by a remand, for production of the records with it for establishing its title. The cases have been
pending for ten years now and at this belated stage at the hearing of the appellants, this submission is made. We will consider the request at the
appropriate place.
It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel through oral and written arguments as follows:
According to the defendants, the suit lands and site adjacent to vegetable market at Pulla Avenue belong to Corporation of Madras. The vegetable
market vendors when attempted to use the vacant land by encroaching upon the suit lands, were evicted and the lands were fenced by the
defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in the respective suits removed the fence put up by the defendants and attempted to erect their posts. Lands
bearing S.Nos.64/1-A, 64/2, 64/3, 64/4, 65/1 and 65/2 of Aminjikarai Village measuring 2.25 acres in Block No.15 were acquired under Shenoy
Nagar Town Planning Scheme and handed over to the Corporation of Madras. However, the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk had
effected transfer of registry in favour of the plaintiffs'' vendors in respect of land in T.S.No.2/5 of Aminjikarai Village under Order
No.R.Dis.69/8585, dated 30-9-1985 and in the year 1992-93 the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk had effected the transfer of registry
in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the land inT.S.No.2/5 of Aminjikarai Village. Therefore, Madras Corporation by letter dated 11-9-1987
requested the Collector to cancel the pattas issued to the plaintiffs'' vendors. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the plaintiffs'' vendors as
to why the pattas granted in their favour be not cancelled as they failed to produce any documents. Subsequently, similar show cause notice was
also issued to the plaintiffs and in the enquiry it was found that transfer of registry in the names of the plaintiffs and their vendors by the Tahsildar,
Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk for the land in T.S.No.No.2/1 sub divided as T.S.No.2/5 in old S.Nos.64/2 and 55/1 of Aminjikarai Village was
wrong and that they belonged to the Corporation of Madras and therefore, the Collector of Madras, on 24-6-1993 cancelled the patta granted to
the plaintiffs and their vendors. (Incidentally, we may note that against the cancellation of the patta, the plaintiffs have filed W.P.No.13097/93). The
pattas granted to the plaintiffs'' vendors and the plaintiffs have been cancelled for good reasons. The portion of the land in T.S.No.2/1 Block
No.15 of Aminjikarai Village was part of Corporation land. The lands in T.S.No.2/1 sub divided as T.S.No.2/5 is part of old S.No.64/2 of
Aminjikarai Village and not the part of S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B as claimed by the plaintiffs. Similarly, their land in S.No.64/2 is one among the lands
acquired in Award No.4/52 dated 13-8-1952. Now the pattas granted to the plaintiffs and their vendors were also cancelled upholding the title of
the suit properties in favour of the Corporation of Madras. The plaintiffs have not examined their vendors and have failed to correlate the suit
properties. The lands claimed by the plaintiffs are not part of old S.No.64/1-B. Therefore, there is a dispute regarding the title pleaded by the
plaintiffs and in such circumstances, the mere suit for bare injunction is not maintainable in the absence of declaration of title. The denial of title by
the defendants was prior to the suit and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek the relief of bare injunction alone as against the true owner, viz. the
Corporation of Madras. (Vide M. Kallappa Setty Vs. M.V. Lakshminarayana Rao, ). The fact that the question of title also may have to be
incidentally gone into in deciding whether an injunction can be given or not is not any justification for holding that the suit for injunction is also a suit
for declaration of title. (Vide VEERAPPA CHETTIAR VS. ARUNACHALAM CHETTI AND OTHERS 43 L.W. 334). The suits for injunction
in the absence of the relief of declaration, especially when the title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties is in dispute, are not maintainable and the
plaintiffs have to be non-suited. To prove the title of the defendants, there is a Gazette publication dated 10-10-1950 followed by an Award in
Award No.4/52 dated 13-8-1952. The patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs and their vendors were also cancelled on a proper enquiry by the
Collector of Madras. The documents and records produced in W.P.No.13097/93 by the Government proved the case of the defendants and also
revealed that the plaintiffs were given reasonable opportunities before the cancellation of the patta and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their
title over the suit lands and also failed to correlate the same. (Vide P. SANGILI AND OTHERS VS. RAMAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS 1974
1 MLJ 87). Even assuming that patta had been issued to the plaintiffs, the same will not confer title as patta is not a conclusive title. (Vide)
(1) GURUVAMMAL AND ANOTHER VS. SUBBIAH NAICKER AND OTHERS 2000 (1) LW 488;
(2) KAMMAVAR SANGAM THROUGH ITS SECRETARY R. KRISHNASAMY VS. MANI JANAGARAJAN 1999 (3) LW 727;
(3) Smt. Sawarni Vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and Others, ;
(4) Baleshwar Tewari (Dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwary and others, ;
(5) Balwant Singh and another etc. Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and others, ;
(6) Muthalammal and 2 others Vs. Sathya Naicker, ;
(7) Article ""Whether a patta is a document of title"" 2001(3) CTC 94 (JS)).
Thus in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, a cumulative approach will establish that the plaintiffs have neither proved their alleged title
over the suit properties nor their possession. They have not correlated the suit properties to the properties covered in their sale deeds and on the
other hand, the title of the defendants has been proved by overwhelming evidence.
Mr. V. Krishnan, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents/plaintiffs, besides making oral submissions, also filed written arguments. They
are to the following effect:
The only contention of the appellant was that the suit property was one of the items of the properties acquired for the purpose of forming a road by
the Corporation of Madras. To establish this, they sought to rely upon the certificate of possession by Corporation of Madras dated 13-8-1951
and the Award dated 15-8-1952. These documents referred to Resurvey No.64/1-A, 64/2, 64/3, 64/4, 65/1 and 65/2 of Aminjikarai Village.
There is no reference to suit property, which is old S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B corresponding to T.S.No.2/1 part, now sub divided as T.S.No.2/5 of
Aminjikarai Village. Thus the documentary evidence clearly establishes that the suit property was not acquired. Ex.A-9 dated 16-12-1991 letter
from District Revenue Officer, Corporation of Madras, clearly states that lands in old S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B of Aminjikarai Village were not
acquired by the Corporation of Madras. The Special Tahsildar, ULT, has issued a certificate on 29-8-1983, Ex.A-7, that vacant land in
T.S.No.2/1 Pulla Reddy Avenue measuring an extent of 13.380 square meters stands registered in favour of one K. Rajalakshmi and K. Janaki,
since been sub divided as T.S.No.2/5 in the permanent Land Register. Again, under Ex.A-5 dated 8-8-1985 patta has been issued by Tahsildar,
Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, in favour of K. Rajalakshmi and K. Janaki, the vendors of the plaintiffs, in respect of the entire property of an
extent of 6 grounds in T.S.No.2/5. Under Ex.A-10 dated 28-2-1992 patta was issued in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents in respect of the
entire property in T.S.No.2/5. Ex.A-15 dated 30-1-1986 also goes to prove that the suit survey number does not belong to the Corporation of
Madras and also points out some mistake in clubbing the old survey numbers. Ex.A-20 dated 24-9-1986 shows that S.No.64/1-B does not
belong to the Corporation of Madras. Further, the plaintiffs have produced the sale deeds of their vendors Exs.A-16 to A-19, which clearly
referred to old S.Nos.59 and 64 corresponding to S.No.2/1 part in Aminjikarai Village. The sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs clearly
recites the old S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B corresponding to T.S.No.2/1 part, now sub divided as T.S.No.2/5 in Block No.15, Aminjikarai Village,
Pulla Reddy Avenue, Madras-29. The plans attached to the sale deeds also make it clear. It is east of Pulla Reddy Avenue Road. The plan sought
to be marked by the Government is not correct. The survey plan has not been produced. Even if there is a mistake in sub division of the present
survey numbers, that will not affect the plaintiffs'' title. The documents relating to acquisition proceedings clearly establish and indeed admitted by
the Government that S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B were not acquired by the Government. The Corporation cannot, therefore, claim that the suit property
was acquired. The plaintiffs have clearly established their title and possession and that their lands were never acquired. If the title of the plaintiffs is
accepted, it has to be consequently held that the cancellation of patta by the Collector is erroneous and the writ petition has to be allowed.
It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs that the Corporation of Madras did not let in any oral or documentary evidence. Absolutely no
explanation is forthcoming as to why it was so indifferent about the cases, where, according to the Corporation of Madras, there was acquisition of
the suit lands for the Corporation of Madras. Only from the records directed by this Court to be produced by the Government, if at all, any
semblance of a claim by the Corporation of Madras in respect of the suit properties is visible. Even there, from the long correspondence between
the Corporation of Madras and the Collector of Madras, it would appear that at a particular stage, the Collector through the officers such as
Tahsildar and the Revenue Inspector in the Department had verified as to whether the suit properties belonged to the plaintiffs, that is to say,
whether the plaintiffs had correlated the suit properties to the properties subject matter of the sale deeds in their favour as also the sale deeds in
favour of their vendors. A reading of the various letters in the file produced by the Government, clearly shows that the Collector through his officers
was convinced that the suit properties did not belong to the Corporation of Madras and they belonged only to the plaintiffs and before them their
vendors. After satisfying himself about the genuineness of the claim made by the plaintiffs and their vendors and after a thorough investigation, the
Collector directed pattas to be issued. However, at some particular point, the Corporation started making a claim to the properties subject matter
of the suits on the basis of some land acquisition proceedings in the year 1951. After some persistent correspondence, it would appear, that the
Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, succeeded in convincing the Collector that pattas had been wrongly issued to the plaintiffs'' vendors and
they had to be therefore, cancelled. Of course, questioning the same the writ petition has been filed.
In Kuppuswami Nainar Vs. The District Revenue Officer and Others, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that,
Revenue Officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not
conclusive and it is only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the Civil Court which has to adjudicate the question as
to whether the person claiming patta is the title holder of the land. Even if the Revenue Authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any
way affect the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which had to decide the question without reference to the decision of the Revenue Authorities.
It has been further held by the Bench that,
in the suit the Civil Court shall decide the rights of the parties without reference to the findings recorded by the Revenue Officers, but only on the
basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them before it.
Decisions are aplenty that patta is not conclusive on title. See:
(1) GURUVAMMAL AND ANOTHER VS. SUBBIAH NAICKER AND OTHERS 2000 (1) LW 488;
(2) KAMMAVAR SANGAM THROUGH ITS SECRETARY R. KRISHNASAMY VS. MANI JANAGARAJAN 1999 (3) LW 727;
(3) Smt. Sawarni Vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and Others, ;
(4) Baleshwar Tewari (Dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwary and others, ;
(5) Balwant Singh and another etc. Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and others, ;
(6) Muthalammal and 2 others Vs. Sathya Naicker, ;
We have therefore to look into the various documents produced by the plaintiffs to find out whether they have established their title. It has been
held in P. SANGILI AND OTHERS VS. RAMAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS 1974 (1) MLJ 87 that it is the duty of the plaintiff to correlate the
different items of suit properties with the different title deeds he is putting forward in support of his title.
We have, therefore, to see whether the plaintiffs have correlated the suit properties covered by the various title deeds in their favour. In the writ
petition on behalf of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, three documents have been filed. The first document is the certificate of
possession given by the Collector of Madras to the Corporation of Madras on 13-8-1951. The survey numbers covered by the certificate are
64/1-A, 64/2, 64/3, 64/4, 65/1 and 65/2. The total extent comes to 2.25 acres. The suit properties have old S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B corresponding
to T.S.No.21/1 part, now sub divided as T.S.No.2/5 of Aminjikarai Village. From this certificate we cannot conclude that the suit properties were
acquired for the Corporation of Madras.
The next document filed is the copy of the Award dated 13-8-1952. Here also, there is absolutely no indication correlating the items to the
present suit properties. The third document is a plan, which is not of much help for correlating the suit properties.
In case, the plaintiffs have satisfactorily correlated the suit items to the properties in the title deeds produced by them, then they have to
succeed. We have already noticed that under Ex.A-9 dated 16-12-1991 it is clearly stated that the lands in old S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B of
Aminjikarai Village were not acquired by the Corporation of Madras. The Special Tahsildar, ULT, has issued a certificate on 29-8-1983 under
Ex.A-7 that vacant land in T.S.No.2/1 Pulla Reddy Avenue measuring an extent of 13.380 square meters stands registered in favour of K.
Rajalakshmi and K. Janaki and that since been sub divided as T.S.No.2/5 in the permanent Land Register. The names of the plaintiffs are found in
Ex.A-7. On 8-8-1985 Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, issued patta to Rajalakshmi and Janaki, vendors of the plaintiffs under Ex.A-5
in respect of 6 grounds in T.S.No.2/5. The District Revenue Officer, Land and Estates, Corporation of Madras, in Ex.A-9 has in no unmistakable
terms said as follows:
With reference to your petition cited, you are informed that the land in old S.Nos.64/1-A, 64/2, 64/3, 64/4, 65/1 and 65/2 of Aminjikarai Village
have been acquired for corporation of Madras. The lands in old S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B of Aminjikarai Village were not acquired by the
Corporation of Madras as per the records available in this Department.
This communication has emanated from a responsible Officer of the Corporation of Madras. It is rather strange that it should dawn on the
Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, to go back on this and claim title to the suit properties on the basis of the earlier certificate issued by the
Collector of Madras. The principle that the persons claiming title to the properties should correlate them to the properties subject matter of transfer
of title in their favour equally applies to both the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is incumbent on the Corporation of Madras to show by acceptable
evidence that the lands that were acquired for the Corporation were the suit lands. In my considered view, the Corporation has miserably failed in
this regard.
Under Ex.A-10 dated 28-2-1992 patta has been issued in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the entire property in R.S.No.2/5. Ex.A-15
dated 30-1-1986 also clearly shows that the suit survey number does not belong to the Corporation of Madras, i.e. a communication from the
Collector of Madras to the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras. It clearly states that Rajalakshmi and Janaki had produced documentary link to
show that the portion of the land claimed ownership by them was purchased from Thiru Ayyavu Naidu. The letter further says:
It was also reported that in a similar case, a portion of the land in T.S.No.2 which stood registered separately in the name of Corporation of
Madras was sub divided and registered separately in the name of one Ganambal under T.S.No.2/2 during the year 1977-78 based on the
documents produced by her to the Tahsildar, for which there is no objection from the Corporation. It is apparent that the extent of land in
T.S.No.2 Block No.15 of Aminjikarai Village classified as Corporation of Madras comprised not only the extents of land owned by the
Corporation of Madras before Town survey operations, but also those of some private individuals and also there had been some mistakes in
clubbing old survey numbers at the time of Town Survey operations. Sub divisions have been sanctioned by the Tahsildar out of the land in
T.S.No.2 based on valid documentary evidence. It is also stated that a notice was issued to the registered holder, viz. Corporation of Madras on
19-7-1985 calling for objections, if any, to the proposed sub division and separate registry and that the sub division and separate registry were
sanctioned only after the expiry of the prescribed period of 15 days.
The Corporation apparently did not give any objection to the proposal and the Collector, on the basis of the documentary evidence, was satisfied
that the link was clearly established and granted pattas.
Exs.A-16 to A-19 which were marked before the lower Appellate Court have now to be noticed. Ex.A-16 is a registered sale deed by
Krishnamurthy and K. Kumar in favour of Rajalakshmi. Schedule A is the entire property and it is described as follows:
S.Nos.31 and 53 and old S.Nos.59 and 64 corresponding to T.S.No.2/1 part in Block No.15 of Aminjikarai Village measuring 6 grounds.
The property sold is Schedule B and it is described as follows:
Plot B of Schedule A property inS.Nos.31 and 53 part and old S.Nos.59 and 64 part corresponding toT.s.No.2/1 of Aminjikarai Village
measuring 1 ground 1200 sq.ft.
To the same effect are Exs.A-17, A-18 and A-19. The sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs under Exs.A-1 to A-4 faithfully reproduced the
contents of the sale deeds in favour of the vendors and the further sub division is also shown. There is a sketch attached to each of the sale deeds
clearly demarcating the various items. The properties are shown to be east of Pulla Reddy Avenue Road and there can be absolutely no doubt
about the identity of the property. The Government in the writ proceedings have chosen to produce a plan, which we have already noticed, is not
of any use. The Government and the Corporation ought to have produced the survey plan, which would have cleared the air about the identity of
the property. For reasons best known to them, it has not surfaced.
These are no doubt suits for injunction. But title is in issue for grant of injunction. It had necessarily to be gone into.
For all the reasons stated above, I find that there are absolutely no merits in the second appeals. No purpose at all would be served by
affording a further opportunity to the Corporation of Madras to produce documentsin support of its claim. The second appeals are dismissed and
consequently, the writ petition shall stand allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The writ miscellaneous petition
W.M.P.No.20136/93 is closed.