A.S.No.185 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 09.07.2025 Pronounced on:18.07.2025

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Appeal Suit No.185 of 2022

& C.M.P.No.6967 of 2022

1. Sellamuthu (Died)

S/o.Palanimuthu,

No.5/183, North East Street,

Pasumbalur Village and Post,

Vepplanthattai Taluk,

Perambalur District.

Angamuthu (died)

2. Ramachandran

S/o.Angamuthu,

No.5/185, North West Street,

Veppanthattai,

Pasumbalur (South),

Perambalur.

3. Poongavanam,

W/o.Chellathurai,

No.57/2, A.K.Nagar,

Venbavoor, Venbavur Veppanthattai,

Vembavur, Perambalur District.

_____________

Page No.1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

4. Selvi (Died)

W/o.Boopathi,

No.4/224, Kila Street,

Palaiya Maravanatham,

V.Kalathur, Perambalur.

5. Kalaiyarasi

W/o.Manikandan,

No.5/99, North East,

Pasumbalur,

Veppamthattai Taluk,

Pasumbalur (North), Perambalur.

6. Navamani,

W/o.late Sellamuthu

7. Palanivel

S/o.late Sellamuthu,

No.5/183, North East St,

Pasumbalur,

Veppamthattai Taluk,

Pasumbalur (North),

Perambalur District.

8. Mahendran,

S/o.late Sellamuthu,

No.5/183, North East Street,

Pasumbalur,

Veppamthattai Taluk,

Pasumbalur (North),

Perambalur District.

_____________

Page No.2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

9. Vijayakandipan,

S/o.late Sellamuthu,

No.5/183, North East St,

Pasumbalur,

Veppamthattai Tk,

Pasumbalur (North) Perambalur Dist.

(A1 Died. A6 to A9 are brought on record as LR'S of the deceased A1 vide Court order dated

11.06.2025 made in C.M.P.Nos.11939,11943,11949/2025 in A.S.No.185/2022 (GJJ))

10. S.Ananthi

W/o. Siva,

No.5/168, North Street,

Pasumbalur (North),

Perambalur. ... Appellant

(A4 Died. A10 is brought on record as LRS of the deceased A4 vide court order dated 1.7.2025

made in C.M.P.No.14833/2025 in A.S.No.185/2022 (GJJ))

/versus/

1. State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by its District Collector,

Perambalur District.

2. Tahsildar

Taluk Office,

Veppanthattai.

3. The Village Administrative Officer

Pasumbalur Village and Post,

Veppanthattai Taluk,

Perambalur District. ... Respondents

_____________

Page No.3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

Prayer:- Appeal Suit has been filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96

of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the Principal

District Court at Perambalur, dated 15.07.2021 in O.S.No.13 of 2020.

For Appellant: Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel,

for M/s.PV Law Associates.

For Respondents: Mr.R.Siddharth,

Additional Government Pleader, for R1 & R2

: No appearance, for R3

J U D G M E N T

The appeal is directed against the dismissal of the Suit for declaration of

title and permanent injunction.

2. The appellants herein are sons of Palanimuthu. They claim title over the

suit property on the basis of long possession of the suit property, which is

classified as Government Porambokku.

3. Their claim is primarily based on the penal tax receipts (B Memo) paid by

their father and by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for the continuous occupation of the land

_____________

Page No.4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

by encroachment and also the earlier litigations between them and one

Veeramuthu, S/o Muthusamy in O.S.No.673 of 1996 before the District Munsif

Court, Perambalur. The said suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction

though has been allowed by the Trial Court against the first plaintiff, on appeal in

A.S.No.7 of 2005 on the file of Sub-Court, Ariyalur, the Trial Court decree was set

aside. The appellate Court has held that only the plaintiffs’ family is in long

possession and peaceful enjoyment of the property ever since 1976. The second

Appeal filed by the legal heirs of Veeramuthu before the High Court in

S.A.No.857 of 2018 dismissed on 24.01.2019 confirming the judgment of the first

Appellate Court.

4. While the fact being so, Veeramuthu suppressing the fact that the Trial

Court decree dated 17.04.2004, later reversed, on appeal, had obtained patta for

the suit property in his name vide proceedings of RDO dated 27.08.2013. As

against the said proceedings, the first plaintiff preferred appeal and after enquiry,

the patta wrongly issued to Veeramuthu, S/o Muthusamy, was cancelled on

30.09.2015. Thereafter, without right or title, the said Veeramuthu had created two

sale deeds dated 18.04.2017 through his power agent Abdul Rahim as if he has

_____________

Page No.5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

title over the suit properties. The sale deeds dated 18.04.2017 in favour of Jubaitha

Begum and Hakkim Basha were created with bad intention and malicious mind,

knowing fully well that the decree in O.S.No.673 of 1996, dated 17.04.2004 was

set aside and the patta issued in favour of Veeramuthu on 27.08.2013 also

cancelled.

5. Not stopping with that, the purchasers had created bogus patta in their

name and leased out the property to one Srinivasan and foisted a police complaint

against the sons of the first plaintiff. Hence, the first plaintiff narrating the events

filed W.P.No.13409 of 2018 for cancellation of the fraudulent sale deeds executed

by the power agent of Veeramuthu and the patta issued in the name of Jubaitha

Begum and Hakkim Basha, based on the fraudulent sale deeds. In the writ petition

as directed by the High Court, enquiry was conducted and the patta in the name of

Jubitha Begum and Hakkim Basha was cancelled and the suit land re-classified as

‘Government Proambokku’ in all the Revenue Records.

6. Alleging that, the revenue officials namely, the second and third

defendants ever since 15.05.2020 onwards trying to disturb their peaceful long

_____________

Page No.6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

possession and making all attempts to dispossess them, the suit is filed.

7. The cause of action for the suit is described as below: -

“20.Cause of action: Cause of action for the suit has

arisen on and from 15.05.2020 when onwards, 2 and 3

defendants at the instruction of 1

st

defendant are frequently

giving disturbances to the settled and long possession and

enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit properties by attempting

to disspossess the plaintiffs from the suit properties abruptly

and on all subsequent days, when threat for dispossession

continues from the end of defendants to the plaintiffs

possession of the suit properties at Pasumbalur (North)

Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District where the

suit properties are lie within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble

Court.”

8. The defendants, all Government officials and representatives of the State

though put to notice, did not participate the trial. They remained absent and set

exparte.

9. The first plaintiff Sellamuthu mounted the witness box and examined as

_____________

Page No.7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

PW-1. The following 15 documents as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15 marked.

Sl.

No.

Exhibits Particulars

1.Ex.A1 series Penal Tax Receipt.

2.Ex.A2 SeriesPenal Tax Receipts(8 Nos.)

3.Ex.A3SeriesPenal Tax Receipts (6 Nos.)

4.Ex.A4 Certified copy of judgment in A.S.No.94/2008

dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned

Subordinate Judge, Perambalur.

5.Ex.A5 Order issued by Revenue Divisional Officer,

Perambalur dated 27.08.2013.

6.Ex.A6 Order issued by District Revenue Officer,

Perambalur dated 30.09.2015.

7.Ex.A7 Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras

in W.P.No.13409/2018 and

W.M.P.No.15808/2018, dated 06.06.2018.

8.Ex.A8 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 18.04.2017

executed by one Abdul Rahim to one Jubaitha

Begum.

9.Ex.P9 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 18.04.2017

executed by one Abdul Rahim to one Hakkim

Basha.

10.Ex.A10 Online copy of FMB sketch in S.F.No.398/1A

11.Ex.A11 series Online copies of computer 'A' Register Extract(5

Nos.)

12.Ex.A12 Certified copy of decree in A.S.No.94/2008, dated

30.03.2015 passed by the learned Subordinate

Judge, Perambalur.

13.Ex.A13seriesTrue copies of Adangal Register Extracts(2 Nos.)

in Fasli Nos.1394 and 1393.

14.Ex.A14 seriesOnline copy of computer pattas(2 Nos.)

_____________

Page No.8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

Sl.

No.

Exhibits Particulars

15.Ex.A15 Online copy of Encumbrance Certificate.

10. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence held that, the plaintiffs

claiming declaration of title, based on long possession is supported by the penal

tax receipts issued by the revenue department. However, they were always

considered as encroachers of the Government porambokku land. Hence, however,

long their possession, it will not confer title on them.

11. In the appeal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants

contended that, the three Members Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rame

Gowda (dead) by LRS –vs- M.Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRS and another

reported in [(2004 (1) SCC 769) had held that occupant in “settled possession”

cannot be dispossessed without recourse to law. Therefore, even if the plea of

declaration of title not found in favour of the appellants, the consequential relief of

permanent injunction ought not to have denied to the plaintiffs, who had

established their long possession through exhibits, such as, penal tax receipts and

Adangal. Beside, the clear finding of the Court in the previous round of litigation,

_____________

Page No.9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

wherein it is observed that, the father of the plaintiffs and after his demise, the

plaintiffs are in continuous and peaceful possession of the property since 1974 .

12. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, the possession of the plaintiffs were not

peaceful. The very fact of collecting penal tax is a proof that they are encroachers

and for the encroachment, penalty has been levied. Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-12 which are

judgment and decree copy of A.S.No.94 of 2008, is not a proof of title. In the said

judgement, the title of the plaintiffs is not declared. In fact, the finding in the

appeal suit in A.S.No.94 of 2008 is against the plaintiffs claim of title over the

government property, they encroached.

13. The dictum laid in Rame Gowda ( cited supra) revisited by the Bench of

equal strength by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margadria Sequiera

Fernandes and others –vs- Erasmo Jack De Sequeira reported in [(2012 (5)

SCCC 370] and had distinguished long possession of a permissive occupant or

licensentary and the long possession of a trespasser. Therefore, the

plaintiffs/appellants cannot claim protection of injunction, which is not an

_____________

Page No.10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

independent right, but incidental to the claim of title.

14. The point for consideration is Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15 give any right of title

by long possession or protection of possession ?

15. It is an admitted fact and also it is amply proved through documentary

evidence that the property is a government proambokku land. The grant of patta

had been cancelled, after intervention of the Court. The long possession of the

property with Palanimuthu and thereafter, with his sons Chellamuthu and

Veeramuthu is not disputed. The same is also proved through the penal tax

receipts marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3. However, this will neither confer title nor

protection from eviction.

16. The plaintiffs seeks the following relief's in the present suit:-

(i)To declare that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties

and for consequential relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and

against defendants, restraining them their men, agents and servants from in

anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and exclusive enjoyment of the

_____________

Page No.11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

plaintiffs in suit properties either by claiming superior right so as to affect the

possessory right of the plaintiffs in suit properties or by giving any kind of

interferences to the peaceful possession and exclusive enjoyment of the plaintiffs

in suit properties for all time to come.

(b)To award cost of the suit.

17. In case of an unauthorised occupation of Government Land, Board

Standing Order, 26 contemplates different course of action to deal with such

unauthorised occupants. One such action is to impose a penalty in addition to the

assessment or the Collector may adopt, in addition to the imposition of assessment

and penalty or in additional to the imposition of assessment but without penalty

summarily evict the person in occupation.

18. For easy reference Board Standing Order 26(2) is extracted below:-

“26(2): Courses to be adopted in dealing with

unauthorised occupation of Government land:- In dealing

with unauthorised occupation of Government land, the

Collector may adopt one of the following courses, but a

Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar may adopt only the first or

_____________

Page No.12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

second of them:-

(1)he may simply levy assessment according to the

provisions of sub-sections (i) and(ii) of Section 3 of the Act;

(2)he may impose a penalty in additional to the

assessment;

(3)He may in addition to the imposition of assessment

and penalty or in addition to the imposition of assessment but

without penalty summarily evict the person in occupation;

(4)he may, in cases where eviction is ordered, also

direct the forfeiture of any crop or other product raised on the

land and of any building or other construction erected or

anything deposited thereon if such building or construction or

thing is not removed within the time specified in the notice

issued under Section 6(1) of the Act.

The Act being of a penal nature, its provisions must be

strictly followed; and Collectors (including divisional officers,

tahsildars and deputy tahsildars in whom the power of enforce

these provisions is vested, should therefore be careful to note

the limitations prescribed by the Act; more particularly those in

Section 3(i) as to the amount of assessment to be imposed on

the assessed waste; those in Section 5(i) as to the exemption of

such occupation ordinarily from penalty it does not extend

beyond a period of one year; and in Sections 6 and 7 as to

notice.”

_____________

Page No.13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

19. It is an admitted case that the Government land has been occupied by

the plaintiffs and some time, penal tax has also been collected from them. Such

long possession whether will entitle them to claim title came for consideration in

Rame Gowda ( cited supra), before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where two

adjoining landowners fought for a piece of land adjoining to their property each

claiming title over it. Under the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

considering the settled possession of one of the party, held that person in settled

possession gains right to possession and even the rightful owner can recover from

him only by taking recourse to law. In the said judgment, at para 8 it is stated as:-

“8.It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned,

the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession

and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable

force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been

wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do

so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the

trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the

rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law;

he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or

interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a

person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a

rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands,

_____________

Page No.14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful

owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has

dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of

proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession

is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with

the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent

even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted

trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a

flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature,

or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have

enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the

possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as

one acquiesced to by the true owner.”

20. In this case, the relief sought is a declaration of title. The ancillary

relief of injunction is only a consequential prayer. The main prayer of declaration

of title has rightly been declined by the trial Court, because mere possession of a

Government land, on paying penal tax, for long period, will not confer title to the

occupant. Likewise, the unauthorised occupant of the Government Land can be

evicted as per the procedure contemplated under the Board Standing Order 26.

Therefore, consequential relief of injunction, which goes along with the main

relief of declaration of title, has to fail, since the main relief itself is not

sustainable.

_____________

Page No.15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

21. In this case, the declaration of title is the main relief and injunction is

the consequential relief. The relief of injunction is not independent but, it is

dependent on the main relief.

22. In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack

De Sequeira (dead) through LRS reported in [(2012)5 SCC 370], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court after considering catena of judgments including Rame Gowda v.

M.Varadappa Naidu reported in [(2004)1 SCC 769], laid down the following

principles of law which emerges or crystallised for granting or refusal of

injunction as under:-

“97.Principles of law which emerge in this case are

crystallised as under:

(1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she

was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by

long possession of years or decades such person would not

acquire any right or interest in the said property.

(2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire

interest in the property irrespective of his long possession.

The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on

demand.

_____________

Page No.16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

(3) The courts are not justified in protecting the

possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was

allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a

friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.

(4) The protection of the court can only be granted or

extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent

agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his

favour.

(5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the

principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right

or interest whatsoever for himself in such property

irrespective of his long stay or possession.”

23. Again, in Behram Tejani and others v. Azeem Jagani reported in

[(2017)2 SCC 759], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating its view, after

following the Rame Gowda case (cited supra), held that a person holding the

premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not

acquire any right or interest in the property or even long possession in that

capacity would be of no legal consequence.

24. In Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (deceased) through legal

representatives v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (deceased) through legal

_____________

Page No.17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

representatives and others reported in [(2022) 12 SCC 128], the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had an occasion to distinguish the relief of permanent injunction sought as

an independent substantive relief in its own right, or as a consequential relief

depending on the other substantive relief and also explained the difference

between dispossession in accordance with due process of law and due course of

law. Para 25 of the above said judgment says:-

“25.An injunction is a consequential relief and in a

suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction,

it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for

declaration with a further relief. Whether the further relief

claimed has, in a particular case as consequential upon a

declaration is adequate must always depend upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. Where once a suit is held not

maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted.

Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the

property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful

possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally

entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in

due process of law. “

25. In the above said case, the plea is that even if the relief of title is

declined, the long possession cannot be disturbed except due process of law. The

_____________

Page No.18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the requirement of due process of law or due

course of law stands satisfied, once recourse to law been taken. It does not the

matter, who brought the action to Court, it could be either the owner in the action

for enforement of his right to eject the person in unlawful possession, or, it could

be a person, who sought to be ejected, in an action to prevent the owner from

ejecting him.

26. Referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thomas Cook

(India) Ltd., v. Hotel Imperial reported in [(2006) SCC Online Del 36], the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and

the true owner is declared, it is to be constituted that due process of law been

followed. Thereafter, no injunction can be granted against the true owner. The

true owner need not resort to a substantive suit for recovery of possession.

27. It is thus well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said

judgments that in a suit for declaration of title and for consequential relief of

injunction, if the declaration of title is not granted for want of proof, the

consequential relief of injunction cannot be granted.

_____________

Page No.19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

28. In the instant case, the land is owned by the Government and the

appellants are the unauthorised occupation. Hence, they are neither entitled for

declaration of title nor for injunction. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the

Principal District Court at Perambalur, dated 15.07.2021 in O.S.No.13 of 2020 are

hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

18.07.2025

Index :Yes

Speaking order/non speaking order

Neutral citation:Yes/No.

ari

To,

1. The Principal District Court, Perambalur.

2. The District Collector, Perambalur District.

3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Veppanthattai.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Pasumbalur Village and Post,

Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.

5.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

_____________

Page No.20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )

A.S.No.185 of 2022

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

ari

delivery judgment made in

Appeal Suit No.185 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.6967 of 2022

18.07.2025

_____________

Page No.21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:33:51 pm )