LAW FINDER

Submitted By: Venkatraman J

PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt. v. Raghavan (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 338961

2012(1) MLJ 369 : 2012(1) CTC 280 : 2011(38) R.C.R.(Civil) 209
MADRAS HIGH COURT
(DB)
Before:- K. Mohan Ram and G.M. Akbar Ali, JJ.
A.S. No. 577 of 2006. D/d. 12.10.2011.
Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt rep by its Adhinakartha Sri-la-ari Shanmugha Desika Gnanasampanda
Paramachariya Swamigal Dharmapuram Mayiladuthurai Taluk Nagapattinam - Appellant
Versus
Raghavan and Another - Respondent
For the Appellant :- S. Sounthar, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- K.M. Nalinishree, Advocate.
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Sections 2 and 14 - Suit for eviction and
possession and recovery of arrears of rent on account of default in payment of rent -
Compromise deed entered into by the tenant to make the default payment - Claim of
ownership by 2nd defendant by way of grant of patta in his favour and contention that
the alleged compromise decree not binding on him - Held that the patta issued under
UDR scheme, is not a patta under the Land Encroachment Act - Therefore, there is no
bar of jurisdiction of civil Court under Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act - Default
in payment of lease amount is a breach of conditions of lease agreements - Notice issued
to the tenant was valid - 2nd respondent was only a co-tenant - Notice issued to one of
the co-tenants is binding and valid against the co-tenant also - Held that the Trial Court
erred in holding that, 2nd respondent had obtained patta and that civil Court has no
jurisdiction to set aside the patta - There was no question of setting aside the patta -
Land was not vested with the Government - Patta was issued under UDR scheme only to
impose tax on Natham lands - No title was conferred on the 2nd respondent by such a
patta - Appellant held entitled to possession and recovery of arrears of rent - Appeal
allowed - Impugned order of lower appellate Court set aside..
[Para 32]
Cases Referred :-
A. Srinivasan v. The Tahsildar, Egmore Nungampakkam Taluk, 2010 1 L. W.123.
Chellaiye v. Seethaiammal, 2001 TNLJ 147.
Joginder Singh v. Jogindero (Smt), 1996(7) SCC 555.
Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 468.
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

S. Rengaraja Iyangar v. Achikannu ammal, 1959 2 MLJ 513.

The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District v. V.
Swaminathan, 2004 (3) CTC 270.
Thillaivanam A.K v. District Collector, chengai Anna District, 1998 3 LW 603.
A.K. Thillaivanan and A.K. Dayalan v. District Collector, Chengai Anna District, (1998) 3 L.W. 603.
JUDGMENT
G.M. Akbar Ali, J. - Appeal filed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.72 of 2004 dated
29.12.2005 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam.
2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit property belongs to Dharmapura Aadhina Mutt
represented by its Adhinakartha. The suit land was leased out to one Chidambaram Chettiar in the
year 1927. He was permitted to put up a construction for the purpose of conducting Rig and Yajur
veda pada salai ( Samaradhanai ) and to feed the students, for which, a paguthi (rent) of Rs. 3/-was
fixed per Fasli. The said Chidambaram Chettiar executed a paguthi deed dated 10.3.1927 agreeing to
run the padasalai with a condition that whenever he was unable to run the said padasalai or
violated the terms of the paguthi deed, he should vacate and handover vacant possession of the
land to the Mutt. The said Chidambaram Chettiar and after his demise, his son Annamalai Chettiar
and after his death, his eldest son, the first respondent herein, continuously enjoyed this property
by performing the undertaking given in the paguthi deed.
3. When the 1st respondent violated the condition by subletting the suit property to the third
parties, stopped the purpose for which it was let out and also defaulted in payment of rent, the
appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 1985 before the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. The said suit ended
in a compromise dated 18.12.1991 and in terms thereof, fresh lease was given to the 1st respondent
by fixing the lease amount at Rs. 1500/-per fasli. Again it was agreed that if the respondent violated
any of the conditions, he should vacate and handover vacant possession.
4. The 1st respondent was irregular in payment of lease amount and did not pay for the Fasli 1401
to 1403. Therefore, the appellant issued a notice dated 20.11.2002 to the 1st respondent. The 1st
respondent received the same and replied stating that his brother viz., the 2nd respondent is in
actual possession and doing the Samaradhanai and forwarded the notice of the appellant to the
2nd respondent. Since no reply was received from the 2nd respondent , the appellant sent a
reminder on 6.1.2003 for which, the 2nd respondent sent a reply that he had not received the
notice dated 20.11.2002. Therefore, the appellant forwarded a copy of the notice dated 20.11.2002 to
the 2nd respondent, for which there is no reply and the suit was filed for eviction and possession of
the suit land after removal of the construction and for arrears of rent and damages.
5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd respondent contested the suit. According to
the 2nd respondent, the said Chidambaram Chettiar created a family trust and after his demise, his
elder son Annamalai Chettiar and after his demise, his brother Ramasamy Chettiar were continuing
the Samaradhanai. The said Ramasamy chettiar is the father of the 2nd respondent. He died in the
year 1996 and the 2nd respondent took over the trust and performed the Samaradhanai. According
to the second respondent, the compromise decree entered between the appellant and the 1st
respondent is non-est and will not bind the respondent. The classification of the suit property is
Natham and a Manai Patta was issued to the respondent by the competent Revenue authority. He is
in possession of the property and the building thereon was assessed to municipal tax and has been
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

regularly paid. From 1998, the respondent is enjoying the suit property as absolute owner by paying
the kist for the land and also paying the tax to the municipality and therefore, has denied even the
title of the appellant.
6. With the above pleadings the parties went for and the trial court framed eight issues, out of
which, the following issues are important:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?
2. Whether the contention of the 2nd defendant that grant of patta in his favour would entail
the extinction of the plaintiff's rights in the suit property?
3. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit?
4. Is it correct to say that 2nd defendant's conduct is against the terms of compromise decree
passed in O.S.No.34 of 1985?
7. The appellant filed the certified copy of the lease deed dated 10.3.27 and also the compromise
decree in O.S.No.34 of 1985. The legal notice sent to the respondents were also marked. The 2nd
respondent examined himself and he had produced a patta dated 20.2.1998 issued by the Special
Tahsildar, Sirkazhi. He had also produced the house tax receipts in the name of Ramasami Chettiar.
8. The case of the respondent is that a patta has been granted under Section 2 of the Land
Encroachment Act by effecting a sub division of T.S No.463/7 and the respondent is the owner of the
land and unless the patta is cancelled no suit shall lie questioning the validity of the patta.
9. The learned District Judge, Nagapattinam relied on a decision reported in 2001 TNLJ 147
(Chellaiye v. Seethaiammal and another) and found that under the natham abolition scheme, a
patta was granted to the respondent/defendant and the only remedy available to the plaintiff is by
filing an appeal or revision before the Revenue authorities and the civil court has no jurisdiction to
go into the question of validity or otherwise of issuance of patta. Holding so, the trial court
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by which, the Dharmapura Adheenam has preferred the present
appeal.
10. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the issuance of patta under the U D R
scheme in favour of a lessee, extinguished the right of the lessor .
11. Mr. S. Sounthar, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondents
cannot deny the title of the landlord as the lease of the land is not denied. He also pointed out that
there is no specific denial by the 2nd respondent regarding the lease in the year 1927 in respect of
the suit property. The learned counsel pointed out that the original lessee viz., Chidambaram
Chettiar was given lease of the property only to conduct the Samaradhanai and admittedly, he was
conducting so for his lifetiime and thereafter, his elder son Annamalai Chettiar was performing the
same and the only dispute is that after Annamalai Chettiar, whether his son namely, the 1st
respondent was continuing or his brother, Ramaswami Chettiar, the father of the 2nd respondent
was performing the same.
12. The learned counsel further pointed out that the claim of the 2nd respondent that from 1966
onwards, he is in possession of the property and was performing the Samaradhanai was not proved.
The learned counsel pointed out that the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.34 of 1985 is binding
on the parties who would deal with the property in accordance with the same and the patta issued
by the Tahsildar cannot be considered. He also pointed out that the suit property is only a punja
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

land and even assuming that it is a Grama Natham, it will never vest with the Government in order
to grant a patta to the person in possession thereof.
13. He relied on a decision reported in 1998 3 LW 603 (Thillaivanam A.K and another v.
District Collector, chengai Anna District and three others) wherein the learned Single Judge
of this Court has dealt with 'village natham' and has held
'27. Thus it is obvious, the admitted classification of the land being a gramanatham, the land
was never vested with the respondents nor they could take action under the Land
Encroachment Act or any other enactment. The petitioners state they have exclusive right, title,
possession, since 1954 onwards. The respondents have no right to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the land and their action in giving a complaint for alleged offence
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is total misconception.
14. The learned cousnel also relied on a decision reported in 2004 (3) CTC 270 (The Executive
Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District v. V. Swaminathan
and others) , wherein the First Bench of this court presided by the then Chief Justice (B. Subashan
Reddy, CJ.,), had also held thus:
'13. In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the admitted classification of the land
being a 'Grama Natham', it is obvious that the land was never vested with the Government on
the Town Panchayat. Inasmuch as the petitioners and their ancestors were in exclusive
possession of the lands in question for the past 40 years, the impugned order of the third
respondent in cancelling the pattas with a view to evict them summarily at the instance of the
resolution passed by the Panchayat is not sustainable. Further such a summary eviction is not
permissible in law when the disputed question of title is involved for adjudication as laid down
by the Apex Court in number of decisions.
15. On the contrary, Mrs. K.M. Nalinishree the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit
that the respondent and his predecessors in title were in possession and enjoyment of the property
for two generations and the property being Grama Natham patta has been granted in the name of
the 2nd respondent and the only course left to the appellant is to approach the competent authority
to establish their title and cancel the patta and the suit is barred under the Land Encroachment
Act. She pointed out that it is the categorical case of the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent
was never in possession and enjoyment of the property and never performed Samaradhanai and
the alleged compromise decree is not binding on the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel pointed
out that a proper eviction notice is not issued to the 2nd respondent for eviction and therefore, the
suit is to fail.
16. Countering the arguments the learned counsel for the appellant quoted the decision reported in
AIR 1963 Supreme Court 468 (Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay ), wherein
the Apex Court held as follows:
''7. ...... The deed of assignment was approved and accepted by the Trustees of the Port of
Bombay, and Rupji Jeraj and the appellant must be regarded as joint tenants. The trial Judge,
therefore, rightly held them to be so. Once it is held that the tenancy was joint, a notice to one
of the joint tenants was sufficient, and the suit for the same reason was also good. Mr.B Sen, in
arguing the case of the appellant, did not seek to urge the opposite. In our opinion, the notice
and the frame of the suit were, therefore, proper and this argument has no merit.
17. He also relied on a decision reported in 1996(7) SCC 555 (Joginder Singh and another v.
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Jogindero (Smt) and Others) , wherein the Apex Court following the decision of the Privy Council
held that
'A tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however defective it
may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord
18. We have carefully considered the rival contentions advanced on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
19. The appellant is the Dharmapura Aadheenam represented by Aadheena Kartha.
20. Ex.A-10 is a certified copy of the registered lease deed executed by Chidambaram Chettiar to the
Dharmapuram Aheena Kartha dated 10.3.1927. The said Chidambaram Chettiar had executed the
paguthi pathiram wherein it is stated that the land (manai) of an extent east-west 82 feet, north-
south 205 feet in Resurvey No.134/1, which belonged to Adheenam, is being taken by the executant
for performing Rig, Yajur vedha Swasthivasana Brahmana Samaradhanai for an yearly rent of Rs.
3/-
21. Ex.A-1 is the compromise decree dated 18.12.1991. The 1st respondent who had defaulted in
payment of lease amount had agreed to repay the default payment and the appellant agreed to
permit the 1st respondent to continue the performance of Samaradhanai. The lease amount was
also enhanced. This was entered into on 18.12.1991. On 20.11.2002, under Ex.A-2, the appellant had
issued a legal notice to the 1st respondent terminating the lease and directing him to hand over
vacant possession of the property due to default in payment of the lease amount.
22. However, under Ex.A-4, the 1st respondent had written a letter to the 2nd respondent, stating
that since the 2nd respondent was performing the Samaradhanai and had forwarded the legal
notice. Under Ex.A.5, dated 6.1.2003, a legal notice was issued to the 2nd respondent reminding
about the termination notice. Under Ex.A-7, the 2nd respondent through his lawyer had requested
for the copy of the notice and under Ex.A-8 a copy of the notice dated 20.11.2002 was forwarded to
the 2nd respondent. Only under these circumstances, the 2nd respondent has claimed title to the
property under the patta issued by the Tahsildar under UDR Scheme. Ex.B-2 is the patta issued on
20.2.1998.
23. The suit property was treated as Natham and has been re-surveyed in Resurvey No.463/7 and
has been treated as house site. (manaikattu). The superstructure was also assessed for house tax.
24. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent is not a party to
the compromise decree and admittedly, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property after the
death of his father and also been issued with patta under the UDR scheme and therefore, no suit
can lie challenging the patta.
25. Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 deals with the right of property in public
roads etc., Under this provision, all the lands vest with the Government except those property saved
under sub clause (a) to (e) of Section 2 of the Act. As far as house sites are concerned, they are not
vested with the Government.
26. In S.A. Nos. 780 and 781 of 2004 and in Rev. Apln. Nos. 16 and 17 of 2010, one of us, (G.M.Akbar
ali J) had an occasion to deal with Grama Natham and Natham poromboke lands. Gramanatham
has been defined in the Law Lexican as follows:-
"Ground set apart on which the house of a village may be built"
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

27. Gramanatham is the village 'habitation' where the land holders may build houses and reside.
They are also known as 'House Sites" (Manai). They were classified as Gramanatham to
differentiate from Inam lands,Ryotwari lands, Pannai lands and Waste lands, while later vested
with the Government, the Gramanatham never vested with the State.
28. There were two enactments which deal with the Gramanatham lands, (i) Madras Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and (ii) The Madras
Land Encroachment Act 1905 (Madras Act III of 1905).
Section 3 (b) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 read as follows:-
" with effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act
the entire estate ( including all communal lands and porompokes) other non-ryotwari lands
......shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances;
29. In 1959 2 MLJ 513 ( S. Rengaraja Iyangar and another v. Achikannu ammal and
another) this court held,
"A house site owned by a person in what is generally known as Gramanatham is not, under
Madras Act III of 1905, property of the Government".
30. In 1998 3 L.W.603 (A.K. Thillaivanan and A.K. Dayalan v. District Collector, Chengai
Anna District and others) this court held as follows:
" Being Gramanatham, it is obvious that the land in question had never vested with the
Government. Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 excludes Gramanatham owned as
house sites. As such the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 can not be invoked by
the respondents in respect of the land in question."
31. In 2010 1 L. W.123 (A. Srinivasan and another v. The Tahsildar, Egmore
Nungampakkam Taluk) this court held as follows:
"Further from the decisions cited supra, it is clear that 'Gramanatham' can not be considered,
ipso facto, as Government property. Once it is found that suit item No.1 is classified as
'Gramanatham' it should be held that it does not belong to the Government. Therefore, there
can be no doubt that the defendant can not invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachment Act 1905."
32. Therefore, Gramanatham is not vested with the Government. Under UDR Scheme (Up Dating
Revenue Record scheme) the gramanatham lands were surveyed and survey numbers have been
assigned. There was an attempt by the Government to levy tax ( Natham Nilavari Thittam).
Therefore, under that scheme, the Natham lands were surveyed and resurvey numbers were
assigned and pattas were issued. Since gramanatham is the habitation where the land owners may
build houses and reside they were known as house sites. They were classified as Gramanatham to
differentiate the land from Inam lands Ryotwari lands, pannai lands and waste lands. While the
lands under the other classifications vested with the Government, the gramanatham never vested
with the State. However, under the UDR scheme, to enforce a tax on the Natham lands, a Thoraya
Patta, for tax purporse was issued to those persons who claimed to be the land holders. The land
holding is based on the title through the predecessor-in-title. Therefore, the patta issued under UDR
scheme is not the patta under the Land Encroachment Act and there is no bar of the jurisdicition of
the civil court under Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act.
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

33. In any event, the suit is also not to set aside the patta or to declare the patta as invalid. The
alleged patta under Ex.B-2 is not based on the title of the land holder as the appellant alone is the
land holder. Though the 2nd respondent is not a party to the compromise decree he would admit
that initially Annamalai Chettiar was permitted to put up a construction on the house site and to
perform the Samaradhanai. The claim of the 2nd respondent is that after Annamalai Chettiar his
father Ramasami Chettiar continued the Samaradhanai and after his demise in 1966, the 2nd
respondent is performing the same. Except for filing some house tax receipts for the year 2000,
there is nothing on record to show that the 2nd respondent was performing the Samaradhanai
from 1996. In any event, he cannot claim title over the property as his predecessor-in-title
themselves were only lessees under the appellant.
34. The denial of the title of the landlord itself is a ground for eviction. Moreover, the appellant has
proved that there are breach of conditions of lease agreements and there is default in payment of
lease amount.
35. As far as the notice under Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act is concerned, a valid notice
has been issued to the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent seems to be a family member
continuing the samaradhanai and therefore, he is only a co-tenant and the notice issued to one
tenant is binding and valid against the co-tenant. Therefore, the trial court is wrong in holding that
the 2nd respondent had obtained patta and the civil court has no jurisdicition to set aside the patta.
36. There is no question of setting aside the patta as the land was not vested with the Government
and also the patta issued is only under UDR scheme to impose tax on Natham lands and the patta
will not confer any title to the 2nd respondent, unless he proves that he is the land owner.
37. In view of what has been stated above and under the given circumstances the appellant is
entitled to vacant possession of the land and also for recovery of arrears of rent. In the result,
appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.72 of 2004 dated 29.12.2005 on the
file of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam are set aside. The suit is decreed as prayed for and
time to vacate is three months from the date of decree. No costs.
Appeal allowed.