AMBIKAPATHI AMMAL & ANR. versus SRI KANDASWAMY KOIL BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER THIRUPORUR

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 10-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015]2S.C.R. 740 
AMBIKAPATHI AMMAL&ANR. 
v. 
SRI KANDASWAMY KOil BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
THIRUPORUR 
(Civil Appeal No. 4021 of 2007) 
MARCH 10, 2015 
A 
B 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
C 
Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 - Tamil Nadu Estates 
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Grant 
of patta - Claim of- Suit for declaration of title and recovery 
of possession by plaintiff - Plaintiff claiming ownership by D 
virtue of patta granted to it and defendants were either lessees/ 
sub-lessees of the plaintiff who stopped rendering services 
to temple and did not pay rent- Defendant's case that they 
acquired title to the properties by prescription; they were 
permanent ryots under 1908 Act and suit properties are E 
included in an estate which was abolished under 1948 Act-
Dismissal of suit by trial court and first appellate court, since 
plaintiff's case based on patta but the same was not exhibited 
whereas rent receipts by defendants proved their case - High 
Court set aside the order holding that the title and ownership F 
of the suit properties vested in plaintiff as Mirasidar - On 
appeal, held: Issue before the High Court to be resolved on 
more surer foundation - Order passed by the High Court set 
aside - Matter remanded back for fresh decision on the G 
findings with regard to the title of the plaintiff on the basis of 
Patta No. 1, whether the plaintiff was Mirasdar and, if so, the 
extent of their rights and whether the suit properties were 
included in an estate under the 1908 Act conferring the 
defendants the status of occupancy ryots. 
H 
740 
741 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing tile appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The plaintiff's case was based on Patta 
No.1, which was not exhibited. According to the 
respondent-plaintiff, Exhibit A-21 which is a Land 
B Resettlement Register establishes the grant of the said 
Patta No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. It does not throw any 
further light on the nature and extent of the rights 
conferred on the plaintiff by Patta No.1. There is also no 
oral evidence on record to explain the same. In such a 
C situation, the materials on record do not permit any 
conclusive determination of the title of the plaintiff on 
the basis of Patta No.1. As the existence of Patta No. 1 
had been proved but the nature of the rights under the 
0 
Patta was not clear, one cannot find any fault with the 
exercise undertaken by the High Court to determine the 
claims of the parties on the basis of preponderance of 
probabilities and in this regard by seeking to examine 
the status of the plaintiff as Mirasidar. However, the High 
E Court appears to have acted a little hastily in accepting 
the status of the plaintiff as Mirsadars solely on the basis 
of the description contained in the rent receipts and 
further in accepting the position that as Mirsadars the 
plaintiff had been vested with title to the suit land without 
F there being any evidence of such status (Mirasdar) of 
the plaintiff, the nature and extent of the right held and 
enjoyed by the plaintiff, even if its status as Mirasdar is 
assumed. [Para-10] [747-F-H; 748-A-C, G-H] 
G 1.2 As regards as the question raised by the defendants 
with regard to the suit land being included in an estate 
under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908, the High 
Court had not given any specific finding in this regard 
but proceeded to answer on the basis that the rent 
H 
AMBIKAPATHI AMMAL v. SRI KANDASWAMY KOil 742 
BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
receipts issued were printed both for 'TR' village and 'TN' A 
village and that 'TN'. village was lnam estate which was 
taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and 
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. On the said, the High 
Court concluded that the abolition of the estate under 
the 1948 Act was not proved by the defendants. Even if B 
the said was not proved, ifthe suit land is included in an 
estate under the 1908 Act and the defendants were 
tenants under the plaintiff the same would confer certain 
specific rights on the defendants under Section 6 of the C 
1908 Act. Such rights which would flow from their status 
as occupancy tenants would entitle the defendants to 
remain in possession with heritable and transferable 
right in respect of the land. The issue before the High 
Court therefor~ ·needed to be resolved on surer o 
foundation than what has been done. [Paras 11,12] [749-
A-E] 
1.3 The findings with regard to the title of the pla

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.