Page 1 of 39

OS.346/2022 Page 1/39

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TINDIVANAM

PRESENT: Thiru.T.H.MOHAMMED FAROOQ, M.A.,M.L.,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FAC), TINDIVANAM

(I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam)

Friday the 25th day of October 2024.

O.S.No.346/2022

(CNR No.TNVPOD0000622022)

Aurovile Foundation, Aurovile, rep.by the

Officer on Special duty, Aurovile .. Plaintiff

--Vs--

1. Thiru.Sridhar

2. Thiru.Prabakar

3. Thiru.Subramani .. Defendants

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 19.10.2024 in the presence of

Tr.R.Natarajan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and that of Thiru.S.Murali Advocate for

the defendants, and after hearing both sides and perusing the material records this

Court delivers the following ...

JUDGMENT

1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration, permanent

injunction and cancellation of documents as null and void and for costs.

2. Brief averments of the plaint :

2.1. The plaintiff state that the suit properties are situate at Irumbai Village,

II ADJ/TDM

Page 2 of 39

OS.346/2022 Page 2/39

Vanur Taluk within the jurisdiction of this Court. The old survey number of the suit

property is 428 the New Survey Number is 426/1E to an extent Ac.21.00 out of

Ac.23.40. The suit property and other properties originally belonged to Geetha,

W/o.Subbaiya Naidu. She was in possession and enjoyment of the properties. She

executed the registered settlement deed on 08.01.1972 in favour of her brother

Venkatrama Naidu, S/o.Ramasamy Naiud, out of love and affection. The settlement

deed is true, valid, accepted and acted upon. The settlor, Geetha, delivered

possession of the suit property on the date of settlement itself. The settlement was

executed to an extent of Ac.23.40, Venkatrama Naidu was put in possession of the

suit property on the date of the settlement by the settlor. Based upon the settlement

deed dated 08.01.1972, the settlee, Venkatraman took possession of the property. The

patta and other revenue records were transferred in the name of Venkatrama Naidu in

pursuance of the settlement in Patta No.704.

2.2. The plaintiff states that Venkatrama Naidu, S/o.Ramasamy Naidu sold a

part of the suit property measuring an extent of Ac.3.50 each to Aurovile Foundation,

rep, by its General Secretary, Thiru. L.K.Tripathi, S/o.Tripathi under the registered

sale deed dated 19.08.1992, 20.08.1992, 20.08.1992, 22.08.1992, 25.08.1992 and

26.08.1992, which are all registered with the Sub-Registrar Office, Vanur. In

pursuance of the sale, the possession is also delivered to the purchaser, namely,

Aurovile Foundation. Aurovile is in possession and enjoyment of the property

II ADJ/TDM

Page 3 of 39

OS.346/2022 Page 3/39

purchased by them under the sale deed.

2.3. The plaintiff state that as per the above sale deeds, the plaintiff got title

and possession of the entire extent of Ac.21.00. The above sale deeds are true, valid

and the property was purchased for adequate consideration. From the date of

purchase, plaintiff is peacefully in possession of the suit property. The patta has been

transferred in the name of plaintiff in patta No.704, based upon the purchase by the

plaintiff. The property is an agricultural land the plaintiff is paying the kist to the suit

property regularly. The plaintiff alone is having title and possession of the suit

property. Everyone in the village knew the possession of plaintiff of the suit property.

2.4. The plaintiff state that above Venkatraman, S/o.Ramasamy Naidu sold

the remaining extent of Ac.3.00 to and in favour of Sammandhamurthy,

S/o.Velayutham Pillai under document No.2512/1981, dated 17.06.1981. After selling

the suit property to the plaintiff, the vendor got no property to convey or transfer to

any person. The plaintiff came to know that in the resurvey more extent of property

was given patta in the name of the vendor, Venkatraman. Though more extent of

property finds place in the “A” Register and the patta, the entire extent comprised in

old survey No.428/- is an extent of Ac.23.40. No other property or extent is covered

under the new survey No.426/1E, the vendor, Venkatraman sold out the entire extent

of Ac.23.40 as aforesaid. No property was left out by the vendor, Venkatraman to

succeed by his heirs.

II ADJ/TDM

Page 4 of 39

OS.346/2022 Page 4/39

2.5. The plaintiff states that after the death of Venkatraman, S/o.Ramasamy,

the 1st defendant executed a release deed in favour of the 2nd defendant on 18.02.2022

and in turn the 2nd defendant sold a portion of property on 18.04.2022 to and in favour

of 3rd defendant. None of the above persons got title and possession of the property.

The release deed and the sale deed between the defendants recites 1 & 2 defendants

got the property by succession from their father by patta in his name. As already

submitted, 1 & 2 defendant’s father sold the entire property, which he got by the

settlement and did not left any property to succeed by his heirs. No patta can be

granted for more extent than the land owner got under a deed. The larger extent of

property in old survey No.428/- is Ac.23.40 and the same had been conveyed by the

original owner will be illegal and void. They have no right to convey any property.

The defendants have no title or possession over the suit property. Having created

false and fabricated documents and the defendants are attempting to dispossess the

plaintiff in the 1st week of August 2022 by gathering unruly persons near the suit

properties. But the plaintiff managed to control the attempt of the defendants. The

defendants are taking advantage of the more extent of property mentioned in the

resurvey proceedings. There is no property as mentioned in the patta. The plaintiff

got the information of false and fabricated documents of the defendants after

verifying the encumbrance certificate. The defendants want to grab the property by

coercive means. By creating the false and fabricated documents, the defendants

II ADJ/TDM

Page 5 of 39

OS.346/2022 Page 5/39

denied title of the plaintiff over the suit property. Also they challenged the title of the

plaintiff in the suit property when they gathered in large number of hooligans. If the

attempt of the defendants is allowed, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and

hardship. Therefore the plaintiff has no other remedy except to file the suit against

the defendants for the relief of declaration of title to the plaintiff, and for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants, their men or agents in any manner interfering

with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, and to declare the 18.02.2022 release

deed and 18.04.2022 sale deed null and void, and for cost. Hence the suit.

3. The brief averments of the Written statement and filed by 3rd

defendant and adopted by the defendants 1 and 2:

3.1. The suit as framed by the plaintiff is false, incorrect, untrue and the

same is not maintainable in law and on facts and the same is deserved to be

dismissed. The plaintiff is not authorized and competent person to proceed with the

case under the Societies and Registration Act and hence the suit has to be dismissed

3.2. The defendant hereby specifically denies that the old S.No.428 and the

new S.No.426/1E is an extent of Ac.21.00 out of 23.40. It is absolutely false and

incorrect. Because the old S.No.428 comprises of total extent of Ac.295.38. The

Revenue records i.e. Patta and the A register issued by the government clearly proved

the fact. The plaintiff cannot question about it. The defendant submits that one

II ADJ/TDM