Blog

Case Title: K. KAMALA vs Executive Officer, Arulmighu Nandeeswaraswamy Devasthanam

Case No: S.A.No.398 of 2017

Decided on: 20^th December, 2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

 Facts of the Case

The Third Respondent filed a lawsuit against Respondents 1 and 2, requesting a declaration of title and the return of possession. This led to the start of the Second Appeal. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was cited by the second respondent, who was initially the second defendant in the lawsuit, in an attempt to have the plaint rejected. The First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to accept this application. The appellants assert that their predecessors-in-interest received the suit property as a personal grant and have been in possession of it ever since. Utilizing a disagreement between the appellants and the first respondent, the second respondent reportedly conducted trespassing and built unapproved constructions on the property. After the second defendant’s constructions are removed, the complaint requests a declaration of the plaintiffs’ title and the return of ownership.

The second respondent to the lawsuit filed an application to have the plaint rejected, claiming that the appellants had not provided any documentation to back up their assertion of a personal grant. During the Assistant Settlement Officer’s procedures, the second appellant is said to have acknowledged the first respondent’s ownership of the suit property by signing a surrender deed in its favor. In addition, the second respondent claimed that it was a legitimate tenant of the first respondent, in whose favor a patta had been obtained. The second respondent also argued that the litigation was precluded by limitation and res judicata principles. The plaint was denied when the Trial Court granted the Second Respondent’s arguments. The suit properties were service inam lands, and the appellants’ claim was deemed unworkable by the Surrender Deed, according to the First Appellate Court, which supported the verdict. This ruling is now being contested by the appellants in the Second Appeal.

Legal Provisions

The applicable legal provision in the current matter pertains to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963

Issues

In light of the existing facts and circumstances, was the Judge justified in dismissing the First Appeal without considering the established legal principle outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which dictates that, in cases of plaint rejection, only the assertions in the plaint should be considered and not the defenses presented by the defendants?

Was the Judge justified in rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim without giving due consideration to the legal doctrine set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in and endorsed by the Full Bench decision of this Court, affirming the maintainability of a Civil Suit for declaration of title to inam lands even when Ryotwari Patta has been granted to the Religious Institution?

Courts analysis and decision

The Court highlighted that the Civil Court still has the authority to decide on the issue of title on its own, even after the settlement procedures have ended. Based on their assertion that the suit properties were a personal grant to their predecessors-in-interest, the appellants in this case are requesting a declaration of title. Without conducting a complete trial, the lower courts determined that the holdings were service maniyam land (also known as Gurukkal Maniyam) rather than a personal donation. The Court claimed that a full trial is necessary to determine whether the holdings are a personal grant or a service inam land. There hasn’t been a definitive resolution to the issue, as evidenced by the continuing appeal and the patta procedures under the Inam Abolition Act. The Court emphasised that the failure of the Patta proceedings to reach a final resolution does not bar the Civil Court from considering a suit for title and chastises the lower courts for making a hasty decision on the issue based on exhibits submitted by the second respondent.

In response to a claim made by the first respondent, the court denied the claim that the suit’s cause of action is defective because the Assistant Settlement Officer issued an incorrect order. The Court noted that while the appellants listed the incorrect order as a cause of action in the first paragraph, the plaint’s body makes it abundantly evident that the 2nd respondent’s trespass and unauthorised construction during a dispute with the 1st respondent is what gives rise to the challenge to the appellants’ title. The Court emphasised that the essential fact of the appellants’ title claim is included in the cause of action, and that the cause of action paragraph should not be the only one under consideration. As a result, the original suit is reinstated so that the Trial Court can proceed with its legal proceedings, and the Second Appeal is granted, reversing the decisions of the subordinate courts.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view judgement