Skip to content


Palani Ammal Vs. L. Sethurama Aiyangar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1949)1MLJ290
AppellantPalani Ammal
RespondentL. Sethurama Aiyangar
Cases ReferredChinnathambi Goundan v. Venkatasubramania Iyer
Excerpt:
- .....the suit in ejectment; secondly, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and that it is communal property and he had, therefore, no title to eject; thirdly, that the plaintiff had no possession within 12 years prior to the date of institution of the suit. on all the questions both the courts found in favour of the plaintiff negativing the contention of the defendant, and decreed the suit.2. in this second appeal, again the same contentions were repeated. on the first question apart from the fact that the plaintiff was recognised as the landholder under the estates land act, he is entitled to institute the present suit in ejectment against the defendant who was a trespasser on the finding of the courts below as laid down by the decision of this court in syed ahmad sahib v. the.....
Judgment:

Satyanarayana Rao, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the landholder to recover possession of some Gramanatham land, which was occupied by the defendant sometime in 1936. The main defence to the suit was that the plaintiff who was one of the co-owners of the inam village in which the land was situated was not entitled to institute the suit in ejectment; secondly, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and that it is communal property and he had, therefore, no title to eject; thirdly, that the plaintiff had no possession within 12 years prior to the date of institution of the suit. On all the questions both the Courts found in favour of the plaintiff negativing the contention of the defendant, and decreed the suit.

2. In this second appeal, again the same contentions were repeated. On the first question apart from the fact that the plaintiff was recognised as the landholder under the Estates Land Act, he is entitled to institute the present suit in ejectment against the defendant who was a trespasser on the finding of the Courts below as laid down by the decision of this Court in Syed Ahmad Sahib v. The Magnesite Syndicate, Ltd. : AIR1915Mad1214(1) . The contention, therefore, that the plaintiff was not entitled to institute the suit, he being only a co-owner, is untenable.

3. The second contention is that the plaintiff is not the owner or at any rate is not entitled to maintain this suit in respect of Gramanatham lands. In view of the decision of Wadsworth, J., in Chinnathambi Goundan v. Venkatasubramania Iyer (1939) M.W.N. 207 this contention also seems to me untenable. Gramanatham is not communal property in the sense in which thrashing floor or burning grounds or other property is communal, that is property reserved for the use of the community. Gramanatham if it is unoccupied is assigned from time to time by the proprietor whether it is in zamindari area or in an inam village and this practice was referred to by the learned Judge (Wadsworth, J.) in Chinnathambi Goundan v. Venkatasubramania Iyer (1939) M.W.N. 207. This, if I may say so with respect, is the practice obtaining in the zamindari area and also in inam villages.

4. The village in which the suit site is situated is an inam village and the owners of the village (inamdars) would be entitled to all the porombokes except communal porombokes; and this not being a communal poromboke, the plaintiff would be entitled to institute the suit for recovery of possession.

5. As regards the third contention that the plaintiff did not establish possession within 12 years prior to the suit, the finding of both the Courts is that Karuppan Ambalam was in possession of the property from the year 1923 up to 1933 and thereafter he walked out of the building or house. The house became dilapidated and the defendant trespassed into that property in 1936. Thereafter, she rebuilt the house and continued to live. The present suit was instituted within 12 years from the date of the trespass by the defendant in 1936 and, therefore, the suit is in time. It is in evidence of the defendant's witnesses themselves that the plaintiff was planting mango trees on the site and was watering them. That could not have happened after the defendant got into the house after 1936 but must be between 1933 and 1936 and the Courts below have given sufficient reasons for holding that the defendant's possession commenced only in 1936. The plaintiff was in possession at any rate after Karuppan Ambalam walked out of the land in 1933. The decision of the Court below is correct. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //