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
Page 6 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 6/39
Geetha wife of Subbaiah Naidu has executed a registered settlement deed on
06.01.1972, in favour of her brother Venkatraman Naidu to an extent of Ac.23.40, in
patta No.704, which comprises of 295.38 Ac, there are remaining extent of the said
patta, which absolutely belong to the defendants 1 and 2 and their ancestors.
3.3. The defendant state that the said Venkatraman Naidu son of
Ramasamy Naidu, sold a part of a suit property to an extent of 3.50 Ac. each, to
Aurovile Foundation represented by its general secretary under various registered
sale deed mentioned in the plaint which this defendants do no dispute over it and so
the question of encroach does not arise at all. But the plaintiff has given incorrect
description of property in respect of extent and its measurement on an imaginary
ground.
3.4. The defendant states that on 25.08.1992, the said Venkatraman Naidu
sold a part of suit property to an extent of 3.50 Ac., to Aurovile Foundation in
Doc.No.2268/1992. The defendant specifically denies its boundary including extent
and measurement in respect of this property comprised in Doc.No.2268/1992, as
mentioned in the sale deed dated 25.08.1992. The said boundary, extent and its
measurement are false and incorrect and the same is misleading and the plaintiff has
wantonly suppressed the fact and has given a false extent mala fide, to suit their
convenience. The plaintiff wantonly misrepresented, distorted the facts, extent and its
II ADJ/TDM
Page 7 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 7/39
measurement. The plaintiff has falsely given such description of property with false
boundaries and its extent in respect of this doc No.2268/1992, in sale deed dated
25.08.1992, which is non-existence. The plaintiff is absolutely bound to prove his
case of its extent, measurement. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove as
averred that as per the above said sale deed, the plaintiff got titled and possession of
the entire extent of Ac.21.00, but the plaintiff has not taken any steps to measure the
suit property to his extent Ac.21.00, by a surveyor, and he has also not taken any
steps to sub division and even how he has not filed any petition to survey and to
inspect the suit property by a qualified surveyor, in respect of his extent Ac.21.00, in
which he claimed title. The defendant categorically disputes the identity of the
description of property related to its extent, measurement and boundary. As he failed
to prove his claim, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
3.5. The defendant states that, when there is a dispute in respect of the
extent, measurement, it is bounden duty on the part of the plaintiff to prove such an
extent in a manner known to law. The plaintiff has not filed any application to inspect
the suit property, through a qualified surveyor to his extent of Ac.21.00 in old
SNo.428 and new S.No.426/1E. The plaintiff roughly, vaguely had given the extent,
measurement, without any sub division of his property or proof of the revenue
record or survey record, in respect of his property. Hence the suit has to be
dismissed.
II ADJ/TDM
Page 8 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 8/39
3.6. The defendant states that, the old S.No.428 totally consists of 295.38
Acres. Thereafter the same was sub divided as 426, the full extent of Ac.295.38, was
shown and thereafter in the year of 1984, the same was sub divided into S.No.426/1E,
which show that the said Venkatraman Naidu was entitled to (27.00 Ac) 11.00.0
Hectares, in 1E issued by a revenue document, i.e.patta and A register issued by the
government on 30.04.1984 which itself proved and the same is filed herewith and it
may be read as part and parcel of this written statement.
3.7. The defendant states that, the said Venkatarama Naidu sold remaining
extent of 3.00 Ac.on 17.06.1981, in favour of one Sammandamurthy under a
registered sale deed, in Doc.No.2512/1981, for a valid consideration. It was
registered at Sub-Registrar’s office at North Madras and the same was not reflected in
E.C.,at Vanur Sub-Registrar’s Office till the year of March 2022. It is established
from the document dated 17.06.1981 itself. But the plaintiff falsely alleged that this
property covered under this new S.No.426/1E and further alleged that there is no
more extent belong to Venkatarama Naidu.
3.8. The defendant states that the said Sammandamurthy sold his property
to one Aurobindo Diamonds on 20.12.1981, in respect of the S.No.498, Ac.295.38,
which he had purchased. Thereafter on 01.01.1993, the said Aurobindo Diamonds
Limited has also executed a sale deed to one Adithi Diamond.
II ADJ/TDM
Page 9 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 9/39
3.9. The defendant states that the S.No.428 comprised of Ac.295.38 of
which, the new S.No.426/1E, consists of 11.00.0 Hec. i.e. 27.17 acres, of which the
plaintiff purchased only to an extent of total 21.00 Ac. So the plaintiff is entitled to
only to an extent of Ac.21.00. Patta stands in the name of Venkatrama Naidu and his
father Ramasamy Naidu and his forefathers who are totally entitled to total extent of
295.38 Acres. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any kind of right or interest over
it except the property purchased by them as mentioned in their respective sale deeds.
3.10. The defendant states that it is false to allege that the defendant and his
father sold the entire property. It is equally false to allege that he did not left any
property. The 1st and 2nd defendants’ forefather had own vast extent of land, then
295.38Ac., in old S.No.428. Patta “A” register was also issued by the government in
their name many decades ago. The said patta and ‘A’ register are also filed and hence,
the ancestral of the defendant 1 and 2 had absolute right over it. The plaintiff is
entitled to only an extent of 21.00 acre, as per his sale deeds. The defendant had no
objection, if they are subdivide, demarcate the extent, boundary the manner known to
law.
3.11. The defendant hereby specifically denies the allegations that in para
no.10 of plaint that, the larger extent in old S.No.428 Ac.23.40, and the same had
been covered by the original owner and any further document by the heirs of the
II ADJ/TDM
Page 10 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 10/39
original owner will be illegal and void, and they have no right to convey any
property. It is absolutely false and incorrect, the plaintiff made such a wild allegation
mala fide, and with an intention to commit fraud upon the defendant’s property. The
plaintiff has no locus standi to questions about the right of his vendors title, interest,
rights and extent over their property, except what was purchased by them.
3.12. The defendant states that the suit property and other properties
originally belong to the 1 and 2 defendant’s father Venkatraman Naidu and his
forefather V.Ramasamy Naidu and his father Venkatasamy Naidu. They had more
than 295 Acres in S.No.428/- . They had been in possession and enjoyment of the
same for many decades. Thereafter on 11.02.1959, the said Ramasamy Naidu and his
legal heirs namely Venkatraman Naiud, Govindaraju , Babu, Venu Ammal, the wife
of Ramasamy Naidu, and his minor daughters Lakshmikandham and Geetha divided
the property under a registered partition deed. Under the said partition deed, B
schedule of the partitioned property was allotted to the said Venkatraman Naidu in
S.No.428 of 295.38 Acres. Thereafter, the said Geetha has also executed a registered
settlement deed on 06.01.1972, in favour of her brother Venkatraman Naidu and then
the said Venkatraman Naidu was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said
property in S.No. 428, which is comprised of more than 295.38Ac. The said Dhana
settlement deed dated 06.01.1972, is to an extent of Ac.23.40 cents in S.No.428 of
total extent of 295 Ac.
II ADJ/TDM
Page 11 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 11/39
3.13. The defendant states that the father of the 1 and 2 defendants, the said
Venkatraman Naidu had been in possession and enjoyment of both the partitioned
property and also settlement property. Thereafter the said S.No.428 was sub divided
into new S.No.426/1E, which consists of 11.00.0 Hectares’ in Patta No.704, which
was in possession and enjoyment of the said Venkataraman Naidu, the government
has also issued Patta No.704, in favour of the said Venkataraman Naidu in New
S.No.426/1E to an extent of 11.00.0 Hectares. This defendant states that on
24.02.2022, the surveyor has also measured the property and issued the report in
Na.Ka.2/4949/2002, proceedings dated 24.02.2022, that the said 1 and 2 defendant’s
father Venkataraman Naidu had entitled and own 11.00.0 Hectare in joint Patta
No.704, in S.No.428 in New S.No.426/1E . Further, it is stated that even after
alienation to the plaintiff Aurovile foundation to an extent of 21.00 Acres, there was
remaining extent of 6.17 Ac., existing in his name, and in continuation of the same,
the VAO has also inspected and issued a certificate after verifying the documents and
enquiry, that there is an extent of 6.17 acres, in new S.No.426/1E owned by 1 and 2
defendants father Venkataraman Naidu. Thereafter, the said Venkatraraman Naidu
died on 17.01.1993 and then, the legal heirs of the Venkatraman Naidu ie. the
defendants 1 and 2 was in possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of
6.17 Ac.
II ADJ/TDM
Page 12 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 12/39
3.14. The defendant states that the said Venkataraman Naidu sold an extent
of 3.00 Ac.in Old S.No.428 , on 17.06.1981, in favour of one Sammandamurthy,
under a registered sale deed in doc.No.2512/1981 and the same was registered at the
Sub Registrar’s office at North Chennai. Thereafter the said Sammandamurthy sold
the said property to one Commerce under Sri Aurobindo in the year of 1981 and then
the said commerce under Sri Aurobindo sold the said property to one Aditi Diamond
on 11.01.1993. Thereafter, on 12.09.2022, the same was purchased by one Roshan
Sharma Goldinglass India Limited., to an extent of 3.00 Ac. in S.No.426/1E2. No
entry was made in E.C., in respect of the transaction till the year March 2022. Out of
total 27.17 Ac., in S.No.426/1E the plaintiff has purchased under the above said sale
deeds only to an extent of 21.00 Ac. and the defendants possessed of the remaining
extent of 6.17 Ac. Later in the year of May 2022, the said Roshan Sharma, Goldglass
Limited made entry in E.C.,. at Vanur Sub Registrar’s office in respect of his 3.00
Ac., and also initiated Revenue Proceedings and then the same was settled and this
defendants not raised objection to his 3.00 Ac., and even Patta was also changed in
the name of the said Aurobindo Goldglass Limited and he is in possession of the
same.
II ADJ/TDM
Page 13 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 13/39
3.15. The defendant states that on 18.04.2022, the 3rd defendant purchased
the property from the said V.Prabakar, under a registered sale deed for a valuable
consideration to an extent of 2.40 Ac., in 6.17 Ac., out of 27.17 Ac., in S.No.428-
295.38,in New .No.426/1E-11.00.0 Hec.,(in Doc.No.2474) in S.No.426-1E4-1.72
Ac., and in S.No.426/1E5 -0.68 cents.
3.16. The defendants states that on 27.06.2022, the 3rd defendant purchased
another item of property from the said 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed for a
valuable consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-in S.No.428, New S.No.426/1E -(in
Doc.No.4360) in S.No.426/1E3A-0.05 Cents in S.No.426/1E3C-0.37 cents. So the 3rd
defendant entitled to 2.82 Ac., and the said Roshan Sharma of Aurobindo Goldglass
Limited entitled to 3.00Ac. and the plaintiff entitled to 21.00 Ac., only. The said
Prabakar entitled to 0.35 cents and some extent also left for laying road.
3.17. This defendant states that after purchase of his property, he also filed
an application to revenue authority, to survey and measures his extent of property, the
surveyor has also inspected the defendant’s property and found correct to his
measurement and issued a certificate. The said certificate is filed and the patta in
No.3207 is also issued to this defendant in respect of New. S.No.426/1E -0.69.63
Hec., and New S.No.426/1E5-0.27.15 Hec., and the said Patta copy are filed. More
importantly, so far, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to sub divide his property but
II ADJ/TDM
Page 14 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 14/39
the plaintiff has illegally trying to encroach upon the defendant’s property in which
he had no right over it. The plaintiff has several time attempted to trespass upon the
defendant’s property as well as the other property situate adjacent to its property. But
the defendant and local village people successfully prevent the plaintiff’s illegal
attempt and lodged a complaint against the plaintiff. As the plaintiff are powerful
men with both having money power as well as muscle power with political
background. Hence, the plaintiff influences the police as not to take any legal action
against him. Finally the defendants lodged a police complaint against the plaintiff
with aggrieved local village people, and then filed a complaint before the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur and then on 04.01.2023, the police issued a
CSR and filed an FIR.
3.18. The defendant states that it would be relevant to state that, on the
proceedings of 143/Prl/secy/2022-dated 07.10.2022 of the principal secretary’s of his
excellency the governor and on the proceedings of the District Collector, Villupuram
in Na.Ka.a.9/253430/2022-dated 08.12.2022 and on the DRO proceedings in
Na.Ka.a.6/203/2022-dated 12.12.2022, in Irumbai village S.No.426/1E1, 426/1E2,
426/1E3A, E3B, E3C, 426/1E4, 426/1E5, total extent, and measurement was
submitted to the government,. after surveying the entire extent, and the 3rd defendant
obtained the same from the government and filed the same herewith and it may be
read as part and parcel of this written statement. This government report also affirm
II ADJ/TDM
Page 15 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 15/39
that the 3rd defendant entitled to the extent as per his sale deeds as aforesaid and the
plaintiff had no right over it.
3.19. The defendant states that the plaintiff has not surveyed the property,
measures the property and did not take any steps to sub division the property which
clearly shows the fraudulent intention of the plaintiff to grab to grab the property
beyond his purchased extent of 21.00 Acres.
3.20. All the other allegations are not expressly admitted herein are
specifically denied. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Issues:
4. Based on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for
trial;
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaring the release
deed alleged to have been executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd
defendant dated 18.02.2022, (document No.1168/2022, SRO, Vanur)
as null and void and inoperative.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare
the sale deed alleged to have been executed by 2nd defendant in
favour of 3rd defendant dated 18.04.2022, (document No.2474/2022,
SRO, Vanur) as null and void and inoperative.
II ADJ/TDM
Page 16 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 16/39
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare
that the plaintiff is owner and title holder of the suit properties?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants and their men, agents or any person
claiming through them in any manner interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiff?
(5) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?
Evidence :
5. On the side of the plaintiff one witness is examined as PW1 and Ex. A1 to
Ex.A19 are marked. On the side defendants 3rd defendant is examined as DW1 and
Exs.B1 to Ex.B44 are marked. The learned Advocate commissioner’s report and
survey plan are marked as Exs. C1 and C2.
6. Plaintiff evidence and documents:- PW1/Rajavelu is the Executive
Member of the Land Board, Aurovill. He is the authorised person to depose on behalf
the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the authorisation letter issused by the Secretary in Charge. He
has deposed in consonance with the plaint averments and produced the plaint
documents in proof of the plaintiff’s claim.
7. Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of settlement deed dated 06.01.1972 executed
by the Geetha proving that she has gifted to her brother Venkatrama Naidu an extent
of 23.40 Ac received by her under a partition deed. Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 are the six sale
II ADJ/TDM
Page 17 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 17/39
deeds proving that Venkatrama Naidu sold A3.50 cents each to the plaintiff out of the
gift received from Geetha under Ex.A2. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of the earlier sale
deed dated 17.06.1981 proving that Venkatrama Naidu had previously sold an extent
of 3.00Acre in favour of the Sambantha moorthy.
8. PW1 has further produced Ex.A10, the Certified copy of release deed dated
18.02.2022 proving that the 1st defendant has executed a release in favour of the 2nd
defendant releasing his half share in the remaining 6.17 acres in Survey No. 426/1E
as per the Patta No. 704 standing in the name of their father Venkatrama Naidu. In
turn Ex.A11, the Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.04.2022 would prove that the
2
nd defendant has sold an extent of A1.72 cents to the 3rd defendant.
9. Ex.A12 is the Online copy of Patta No.704 showing the patta stand for an
extent of 11.00.1 Hectares (27.17 acres) in the name of Venkatrama Naidu and the
plaintiff foundation. Ex.A13 is the Online copy of “A” register for the same extent
in their names. Ex.A14 is Kist receipt dated 05.01.2022 paid by the plaintiff for the
part purchased by them. Ex.A15 is the Online copy of guideline value for the suit
property.
10. Ex.A16 is the application given by Advocate for the Aurovile foundation to
the District Registrar, Tindivanam for receiving the copy of order dated 20.1.2022
showing that the release deed and sale deed between the defendants were canceled as
false document. But, it has to be noted here that the defendants have produced the
II ADJ/TDM
Page 18 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 18/39
subsequent order by the same District Registrar, Tindivanam revoking the said
cancellation.
11. Ex.A17 is the Online copy of encumbrance certificate for the periosn
01.01.2022 to 24.10.2022 for the suit properties. Ex.A18 is the true extract of
Adangal register issued by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,Vanur, and Ex.A19 is the Certified
copy of gift deed proving that Geetha executed a settlement deed in favour of her
brother Govindarajaulu gifting the remaining extent of Ac.2.79 cents out of the total
extent received by her in the partition.
12. Defendants side evidence and documents:- DW1/Subramani, is the 3rd
defendant. He has deposed in consonance with the written statement and denied the
plaintiffs claim.. To controvert the plaintiffs claim he has produced the documents in
Exs.B1 to B44.
13. Ex.B1 dated 11.02.1959 is admittedly the Certified copy of partition deed
under which partition was effected between Ramasamy Naidu and his wife and
children under which Geetha was given 26.39 acres of land. Ex.B2 06.01.1972 is
admittedly the Certified copy of gift deed executed by the Geetha in favour of the
Venkatrama Naidu gifting 23.40 acres of land, which is same as Ex.A1.
14. Ex.B3 is produced by DW1 as the certified copy of the earlier sale deed
dated 17.06.1981 executed by Venkatrama Naidu selling an extent of 3.00Acre in
favour of the Sambantha moorthy. But, on perusal of the same, it is in fact the
II ADJ/TDM
Page 19 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 19/39
certified copy of the sale deed dated 20.12.1981 under which Sambandamoorthy had
sold the said 3.00 acres in favour of the (Commerce under Sri Aurobindo ). Which
fact is not disputed by the plaintiff. In fact the said piece of 3.00 acres is inturn sold
by Sri Aurobindo to Aditi Diamond on 11.01.1993 and again transferred to Roshan
Sharma Goldinglass India Limited, who is said to be in possession by sub-dividing
the same in Survey No. 426/1E2.
15. Ex.B4 dated 19.08.1992 is the Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the plaintiff selling 3.40 acres. Ex.B5 is the Certified
copy showing the of Legal heir certificate of Venkatrama naidu including the
defendants 1 and 2 as his sons. The fact that the defendants 1 and 2 are legal heirs of
Venkatarama Naidu is not disputed. Ex.B6 dated 18.02.2022 is Certified copy of
release deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant for the
alleged excess area of 6.17 acres that was available for their father Venkatrama Naidu
more and above the land area sold to the plaintiff in Survey No. 426/1E.
16. Ex.B7 dated 24.02.2022 is the Letter from Tahsildar, Vanur informing the
availability of the extent of 11.00.0 Hectares to Venkatrama Naidu in S.No. 426/1E.
Ex.B8 dated 18.04.2022 is Certified copy of sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant
in favour of the 3rd defendant and portion of the remaining 6.17 acres that was
available after deducting the extent of 3.00 acres already in the possession of Roshan
Sharma Goldinglass India Limited. Ex.B9 dated 27.06.2022 is the Certified copy of
II ADJ/TDM
Page 20 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 20/39
sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant Prabakar in favour of the 3rd defendant
selling another extent of 0.68 cents. The plaintiffs has not denied the execution of the
said released deed and sale deed between the defendants. It is there contention that
after selling 21 acres to plaintiff and 3 acres to Sambandamurthy by Venkatrama
Naidu, there was no land remaining with the Venkatrama Naidu to inherit by the
defendant 1 and 2 and therefore, the release and sale are not valid. The defendants
case is that as per patta 704 Venkatrama Naidu has 11.00.0 Hectares, (27.17 acres)
and there was excess land.
17. To prove that Venkatrama Naidu had excess land in S.No. 426/1E DW1
has produced Ex.B10 which is the True copy of Adangal for Fasali 1403 to 1430;
Ex.B11 which is Online copy of Patta No.704; Ex.B12 which is the Online copy of
Patta No.3207; Ex.B13 which is the Online copy of Patta No.704; Ex.B14 which is
Online copy of ‘A’ register; Ex.B15 which is Online copy of ‘A’ register; Ex.B16
which is Online copy of ‘A’ register; Ex.B17which is Online copy of Patta No.3282;
Ex.B18 which is Online copy of ‘A’ register; Ex.B19 which is Online copy of Patta
No.3206; Ex.B20 which is ‘A’ Register -True copy; Ex.B21 which is true copy of
Adangal for Fasali 1410; Ex.B22 which is FMB True copy; Ex.B23 which is Letter
dated 24.08.2022 given to Tahsildar, Vanur.
18. Further DW1 has produced Ex.B24 dated 13.12.2022 which is the
Proceedings of the District Registrar, Tindivanam revoking his earlier order canceling
II ADJ/TDM
Page 21 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 21/39
the released deed and sale deed between the defendants and Ex.B25 dated 15.12.2022
is the Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate for the suit properties.
19. Ex.B26 dated 04.01.2023 is Xerox copy of first information report
registered against the plaintiff and their men on the strength of the compliant given by
the 3rd defendant forwarded from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.
20. Ex.B27 dated 31.01.2023 is the Name list of patta holders issued by
Tahsildar,Vanur. Ex.B28 are the Photos showing the property of the 3rd defendant and
Ex.B29 is the CD for the photos. Ex.B30 is the Online copy of patta no.3344.
21. To show the alienation made by the other heirs of Venkatrama Naidu in
respect of their respective share allotted under the partition deed in Ex.B1, DW1 has
produced Ex.B31dated 06.01.1972 which is the Certified copy of gift deed executed
by the Lakshmi Kanthammal, sister of Venkatrama Naidu, in favour of her another
brother Govindarajaulu. Exx.B32 dated 06.01.1972 is the Certified copy of gift deed
executed by the Geetha in favour of the Govindarajaulu gifting the remaining 2.79
acres after gifting 23.40 acres to Venkatrama Naidu. According to defendants this
piece of land is located in S.No. 426/1D, which is the property of Govindarajlu.
Later, under Ex.B33 dated 01.12.1982 which is the Certified copy of partition deed
between the Govindarajulu and his legal heirs the properties of Govindarajalu was
allotted to his sons Sankar and Daughter Sumathi each getting 13 acres and 10.40
acres respectively and later it was sold to the plaintiff. Ex.B34 dated 19.08.1992
II ADJ/TDM
Page 22 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 22/39
which is the Certified copy of sale deed executed by the Sankar in favour of the
Plaintiff and Ex.B35 dated 19.08.1992 is the Certified copy of sale deed executed by
the Sumathy in favour of the Plaintiff. Those properties are in S.No. 426/1D1 and
426/1D2 respectivelyt. Ex.B36 dated 20.08.1992 is the Certified copy of sale deed
executed by the Sankar in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.B37 dated 20.08.1992 is the
Certified copy of sale deed executed by the Sumathy in favour of the Plaintiff.
Ex.B38 dated 21.08.1992 is that Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sankar in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.B39 dated 21.08.1992 is the Certified copy of
sale deed executed by the Sumathy in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.B40 dated
20.08.1992 is the Certified copy of sale deed executed by the Sankar in favour of
the Plaintiff. Thus showing that the properties purchase from the clan of
Govindarajalu is in S.No. 426/1D. Ex.B41 is the Online copy of encumbrance
certificate for S.No. 426/1D1 and 1D2. Ex.B42 is the Online copy of ‘A’ register
standing in the name of plaintiff for S.No. 426/1D1. Ex.B43 is the Online copy of ‘A’
register standing in the name of plaintiff for S.No. 426/1D2. Ex.B44 is the Online
copy of Chitta standing in the name of plaintiff for S.No. 426/1D2 and 426/1D2.
Thus, it is evidence of DW1 that there is no connection between the survey Nos.
426/1E and 426/1D.
On the Issues:
22. Based on the above oral and documentary evidence the Counsel for the
II ADJ/TDM
Page 23 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 23/39
plaintiff and the defendants submitted their oral and written arguments. After
considering the rival contention after carefully examining the oral and documentary
evidence the above mentioned issues are answered as below;
Issue No.1 to 4 :
23. As these issues are interlinked with each other and for proper
consideration and appreciation of the evidence to answer these issues they are taken
up together for discussion.
24. On perusing the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence there are
certain undisputed and admitted facts which would help to decide these issues.
Originally the landed property in Irumbai Village Vanue is Survey No. 428 consisted
of the larger extent of Acre 295.39 cents. It originally belongs to ancestors of
Venkatrama Naidu, the vendor of the plaintiff. It was partition in the year 1956
between the brother Ramasamy Naidu and Narayanasamy Naidu each taking acre
145.19 cents and keeping the remaining 5 acre without partition in common. The
remaining 5 acres was in common for Ramasamy Naidu. This fact that 5 acre is kept
in common is admitted by both PW1 and DW1.
25. Subsequently, the extent of Acre 145.19 cents allotted to the share of
Ramasamy was partitioned between Ramasamy and his wife and children as evident
from the registered partition deed in Ex.B1 dated 11.02.1959. On perusing of Ex.B1
it shows A-schedule is allotted to Ramasamy Naidu; B-schedule is allotted to
II ADJ/TDM
Page 24 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 24/39
Venkatrama Naidu, C-schedule is allotted to Govindarajulu, D-schedule is allotted to
Babu, E-schedule is allotted to Venu Ammal W/o.Ramasamy Naidu, F-schedule is
allotted to Minor daughter Lakshmikantham and G-schedule is allotted to Minor
daughter Geetha. Wherein out of Acre 145.19 cents, 25 acres is allotted to
Venkatrama Naidu, 25 acres is allotted to Govindarajulu, 25 acres is allotted to Babu,
25 acres is allotted to Venu ammal, 25 acres is allotted to Lakshmi kantham and
26.19 acres is allotted to Geetha. It is further not in dispute that out of the shares
allotted to them where sub divided in revenue records and they were assigned new
sub-divided numbers. The said share 25 acre allotted to Venkatraman naidu is given
the survey number 426/1A, 25 acres allotted to Govindarajaulu is given the survey
number 426/1B, 25 acres allotted to Babu given the survey number 426/1C, 25 acres
allotted to Venu ammal and Lakshmikantham in together given survey number
426/1D, 426/1C and the share allotted to Geetha measuring acre 26.19 cents is given
survey number 426/1E.
26. Thus, out of the total extent of acre 295.38 cents in survey number 428
it has been partition between the members of family of Ramasamy and
Narayanasamy and the shares allotted to Ramasamy Naidu were in turn partition
between his Children.
27. Geetha out of her share of Acre 26.19 cents, she generously gifted her
brother Venkatrama naidu an extent of acre 23.40 cents under the settlement deed
II ADJ/TDM
Page 25 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 25/39
dated 06.01.1972 marked as Ex.B2 and the remain 2 acre 79 cents was gifted by her
to another brother Govindarajulu on the same date under the registered settlement
deed marked as Ex.B31. Thus, the Venkatrama Naidu, the vendor of the plaintiff
admitted got Acre 23.40 cents by gift in S.No. 426/1E from his sister Geetha. The
dispute is this suit is surrounded in respect of the said Acre 23.40 cents land in S.No.
426/1E.
28. During cross examination of DW1 it is suggest on the side of the
plaintiffs that the entire extent of 145.19 acres of land that was shared between the
wife, sons and daughters of Venkatrama Naidu reverted back the sons alone by way
various settlement deed executed by the wife and daughters of Venkatrama Naidu.
Based on the said settlement deed the brothers namely Venkatrama naidu got totally
Ac 48.40 cents, Govindarajalu got Ac48.40 cents and Babu got Ac48.39 cents. in all
Ac145.19 cents.
29. There is no dispute regarding the other purchases made by the plaintiff
from the clan of Govindarajalu under Ex.B34 to B40 and that those properties are
situated in difference S.No. 426/1D. The revenue records in Ex.B41 to B44 would
show that the properties in S No. 426/1D1 and 426/1D2 are standing in the name of
plaintiff. There is no dispute regarding the shares of Govindarajalu and Babu. The
dispute in only with respect to the extent of Ac23.40cents which was gifted by
Geetha to Venkatrama naidu. Out of which the plaintiff has purchased 21 acres of
II ADJ/TDM
Page 26 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 26/39
land under Exs.A3 to A8.
30. The contention on the side of the plaintiff is that out of acre 23.40cents
received by Venkatrama Naidu he has sold 3 acres to Sambandamoorthy under
Ex.A9 and 21 acres to plaintiffs under Ex.A3 to A8 and therefore Venkatrama Naidu
was not left with any land in S.No. 426/1E. It is further submitted on the side of the
plaintiff that based in the erroneous patta issued by revenue department in the name
of Venkatrama naidu in survey number 426/1E for an extent of 11.00.0 Hectares
(Ac 27.17 cents) 1st defendant have created false release deed for the extent of 6.17
acres in Ex.A10 in favour of the 2nd defendant and a sale deed in Ex.A11 in favour of
3
rd defendant and now attempting to trespass into the plaintiff’s 21 acres of land.
Therefore, the crux of the plaintiff’s contention is that there is no land available for
the defendants 1 and 2, son of Venkatrama naidu to succeeded in survey number
426/1E and therefore the said release deed and sale deed created by defendants 1 to 3
does not create any valid title or interest in the suit property.
31. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on various decisions in 2024
INSC 680 ( Beena and Ors Vs. Charan Das (D) and others); LL 2021 SC 430
(Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh); Civil Appeal No. 1330/2019
(Smt.Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company);
Appeal Civil 1971 of 2007 (Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commisssion & Ors); CWP
No. 6978 of 2024 Dt. 19.07.2024 ( Shanker Singh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of HP) in
II ADJ/TDM
Page 27 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 27/39
support of his contention that mere mutation of revenue records will not confer valid
title to the defendants.
32. Per contra refuting the contentions on the side of the plaintiff, the
learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that the defendants have
established from oral and documentary evidence that physically Venkatrama naidu
was having 11.00.0 Hectares of land in S.No. 426/1E though he received Ac23.40
cents as gift from Geetha. Further submitted that patta No. 704 was issued to
Venkatrama Naidu as early as 1984 for 11.00.0 Hectares and therefore, the contention
on the side of the plaintiffs that there was no land in excess of Ac 23.40 cents cannot
be sustained. Further, it is the contention out of 27.17 acres admittedly he has sold 21
acres to the plaintiff and 3 acres to Sammandamurthy and he was left with 3.17 acres,
which is established from the revenue records that it was available physically on land,
which was the property dealt with by the defendants. It is submitted that the 21 acres
of the plaintiff is intact with them and the defendant neither claim right or interfere
with its possession by the plaintiff.
33. The learned counsel for the defendants further submitted that the
plaintiffs have not measured their 21 acres of land by metes and bound and not
identified them since it purchased, that the plaintiff by giving wrong and incorrect
boundaries is attempted to grab the excess land that is available to Venkatrama Naidu
and deprive the defendant 1 and 2 of their right. It is submitted that the plaintiff has
II ADJ/TDM
Page 28 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 28/39
purchased only 21 acres and cannot claim the any excess land more than that. It is
submitted that when the question of boundaries or extent comes to be decided, the
extent alone can be considered when Venkatrama naidu have intended to sell only 21
acre of land and not more than that. It is submitted that without property identifying
the land purchased by the plaintiff, they are making an unsustainable claim.
34. The learned counsel for the defendants further pointed out that due to the
dispute in the suit property as per the orders of His Excellency The Governor of
Tamil nadu, the properties of Aurovile foundation was surveyed and such report is
obtained and produced by the defendant to show the existence of private patta
holders. Further submitted that report of Learned advocate commissioner in ExC1
and survey plan in Ex.C2 would also show the physical existence of excess land to
Venkatrama Naidu in S.No. 426/1E more and above Ac 23.40 cents received by gift
from Geetha. Therefore, it is submitted the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are
attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s 21 acres land got no substance at all. It is
submitted that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the excess land
which is duly sub-divided and patta issued in the name of the respective defendants
and land owners including the plaintiff. Hence it is submitted that the suit has to be
dismissed.
35. On careful examination of the above rival contentions this Court finds
force and merits in the contentions submitted on the side of the defendants. There is
II ADJ/TDM
Page 29 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 29/39
no quarrel regarding the position of law laid down in the decision referred by the
learned Advocate for the plaintiff mentioned supra, that mutation entries found in the
revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in patta and
other documents. Further, it will not also confer any title over said land and it only
enable the person whose name the mutation order is to pay the revenue dues. Thus,
the mutation of name in the revenue records does not confer any title. However, the
mutation in the revenue records such as patta, chitta and adangal will help to prove
once possession and enjoyment over the land by the person in whose name the
mutation is made.
36. In the present case it is admitted fact that out of 26.19 acre given to
Geetha under partition in Ex.B1, she gifted 2.79 acre to her brother Govindarajalu
and the remaining 23.40 acre to her brother Venkatrama naidu. While so the revenue
records produced on both side, such as patta and adangal and chitta would clearly
indicate that Venkatrama Naidu was issued with Patta No. 704 for an extent of
11.00.0 Hectares (27.17 acres), showing that he was holding that extent in S.No.
426/1E. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the S No. 426/1E included the
share of any other sharers, namely the mother, brother and sisters of Venkatrama
Naidu, to whom the land was allotted under the partition deed in Ex.B1. The
defendant is able to prove by producing Ex.B34 to B44 that the share allotted to
Govindarajulu is located in S.No. 426/1D. Thus, revenue records will clearly prove
II ADJ/TDM
Page 30 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 30/39
that there was 11.00.0 Hectares (27.17 acres) of land in S.No. 426/1E and the patta
originally stood exclusively in the name of Venkatrama Naidu.
37. It is admitted fact that the out of 23.40 acres gifted to Venkatrama naidu
he has sold 3 acres of Sammandamurthy under Ex.A9. It is in turn sold by him to
Aurobindo in Ex.B3 and finally it is conveyed to Roshan Sharma Goldinglass India
Limited. Ex.B30 would show that it is sub-divided and separate patts is issued to
Roshan Sharma Goldinglass India Limited in S.No. 426/1E2. Further admittedly
Venkatrama Naidu has sold 21 acres under Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 to the plaintiff. It is
subdivided in S.No. 426/1E1. After deducting these two extents there is a remaining
land of 3.17 acres available as per patta.
38. It is the contention of the plaintiff that no land is available to Venkatrama
Naidu after the above two sales, so the defendants title is defective. But, even as per
the two sales made by Venkatrama Naidu to Sammandamurthy and plaintiff it come
to 24.00 acers, which is 60 cents excess of 23.40 acres that Venkatrama Naidu got by
gift from Geetha. This will clearly indicate that Venkatrama Naidu was physically
holding more that 23.40 acres of land in S.No. 426/1E than the land gifted by Geetha.
So, at the outset the contention on the side of the plaintiff that Venkatrama Naidu was
not left with any excess land in S.No. 426/1E cannot be sustained.
39. In such circumstances the revenue records issue to Venkatrama naidu
would clearly indicate that he was in possession and enjoyment of 11 hectare which is
II ADJ/TDM
Page 31 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 31/39
22.17acre land in S.No.426/1E. The fact that physically Venkatrama naidu was
holding more that 23.40 acres in S.No. 426/1E is further proved from the report of the
learned advocate commissioner and survey plan. On perusing Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 it
clearly establish that the entire extent of land in in S.No.426/1E is 11 hectare and not
23.40 acres. During the inspection the learned advocate commissioner clearly and
completely identify entire extent of 11 hecters as per the patta and field measurement
sketch. It shows that apart from the 21 acres purchased by the plaintiff, there is land
in S.No. 426/1E2, 426/1E3A, 1E3B, 1E3C, 426/1E4 and 426/1E5, all with the extent
of the main S.No. 426/1E, total extent 11 Hectares. It also shows that excluding the
land in the said sub-divided survey numbers, the land in S.No. 426/1E1 is 21 acres,
which is intact and that is the land area purchased by the plaintiff.
40. Thus, according to the report of the learned advocate commissioner the
plaintiff’s foundation is found to be having 21 acres and 10 cents in S.No.426/1E
which is sub divided 426/1E1, which is the white shade portion in the plan. In fact it
reveals that the area in S.No. 426/1E1 is 10 cents more than what the plaintiff’s
foundation has purchased from Venkatrama naidu.
41. The case of the defendants is that they are not interfering with the said
21 acres of land purchased by the plaintiff and that they have only dealt with the
excess land available to Venkatrama Naidu, ie. 3.17 acres. Out of this the 3rd
defendant has purchased to 2.32 acre which is separately sub divided 426/1E3A,
II ADJ/TDM
Page 32 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 32/39
426/1E3C, 426/1E4, 426/1E5 and the remaining property is shown in sub division
426/1E3B.
42. Therefore on examining the commissioner and plan and the materials on
record, it clearly goes to prove that Venkatrama Naidu was actually and physiclly
holding 11 hectare (27.17 acres) of land in S.No.426/1E. Out of which he sold only
21 acres to plaintiff under 6 sale deeds in Ex.A3 to Ex.A8. The plaintiff cannot make
any claim more that above the 21 acres purchased by them. If there is any excess land
in S.No. 426/1E, it will be the possessory right and title got by Venkatrama Naidu
and his legal heirs. It is not the case of the plaintiff that they are in possession of more
that 21 acres of land in S.No. 426/1E. The description of suit property given in the
plaint is only 21 acres and not more than that. So, as rightly contended on the side of
the defendants the plaintiff cannot make any claim in the excess land available to
Venkatrama Naidu in S.No. 426/1E more that what they purchased.
43. The defendants have not denied the title and possession of the plaintiff in
the said 21 acres of land. Merely based on boundaries they cannot claim that the
entire extent in S.No. 426/1E belongs to them. The question whether the defendant
have transferred valid title based on the excess land available based on the patta and
whether they have acquired valid title is the look out of the defendants and the
plaintiff cannot have a say in it or question it when their 21 acres of land is intact
with them. Hence, the plaintiff cannot question and dispute the release deed and sale
II ADJ/TDM
Page 33 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 33/39
deed between the defendants, when the plaintiff does not have any right or title in that
portion of the excess land. So, the plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the
release deed and sale deed. Therefore, the contention of the side of the plaintiff that
the defendants are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment based
on the release deed and sale deed cannot be sustained.
44. The plaintiff has claim declaration of title for 21 acres of land purchased
under Exs.A3 to A8 in S.No. 426/1E. It is found from the evidence on records that
plaintiff’s 21 acres of land in located in S.No. 426/1E1 and it is intact with them.
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim declaration to the entire extent in S.No. 426/1E
based in the boundary mentioned in the property description as it includes the excess
land available to Venkatrama Naidu. Further the plaintiff has not made out a prima
facie case and also not proved that the defendants are attempting to interfere with
their possession in 21 acres of land. On the contrary there is evidence to show that the
plaintiff has tried to interfere in the excess land of Venkatrama Naidu available with
the defendants, for which the defendants has made a complaint and FIR is also
registered. Further, in view of the commotion that took place in the Auroville
property, His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, has directed to measure the
entire properties of Aurovile. It is admitted fact that as per the proceedings of the
revenue authorities it was measured and report is submitted. The plaintiff has not
produced any evidence to show that in that report the properties of plaintiff is found
II ADJ/TDM
Page 34 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 34/39
to be encroached by the defendants or any other person. Ex.B27 is shows that as per
revenue records apart form the plaintiff, there are other public patta holder in that
Irumbai Village, including the defendants in separate sub-divided Survey numbers.
The defendants are also issued separate patta showing their possession.
45. The plaintiff has produced Ex.A16 that the released deed and sale deed
executed by the defendants were cancelled by the District Registrar, Tindivanam. The
defendants have produced Ex.B24 showing that subsequently the same District
Registrar has revoked his order of cancellation. Therefore, from the above discussed
materials the plaintiff has not prove that the defendants are denying the plaintiff’s
title over 21 acres purchased by them. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence to
prove that 21 acres claimed by them is located within the four boundaries given in the
property description in S.No. 426/1E. On the other hand it is prove that there is
excess land in S.No. 426/1E more that the 21 acres owned by the plaintiff, for which
the plaintiff cannot claim declaration. Further, the plaintiff has failed to establish a
prima facie case for injunction. Hence, the Issues 1 to 4 are answered against the
plaintiff.
Issue No.5:-
46. In view of the answers given to the above Issues the plaintiff is not
entitled for any of the plaint relief. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on cost.
II ADJ/TDM
Page 35 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 35/39
Result:
47. In the result the suit is dismissed on cost.
//Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her in computer, printed out,
corrected and pronounced by me on this the 25th day of October, 2024//
Sd/-T.H.MOHAMMED FAROOQ
II Additional District Judge,(FAC),
I Additional District Judge,
Tindivanam.
Plaintiff’s side witnesses:
PW1 Rajavelu
Defendant’s side witnesses:
DW1 Subramani (3rd Defendant)
Plaintiff’s side documents:
Ex.A1 26.07.2024 Letter from the Deputy Secretary/Director Aurovile
foundation
Ex.A2 06.01.1972 Certified copy of settlement deed executed by the
Geetha in favour of the Venkatrama Naidu
Ex.A3 19.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the plaintiff
Ex.A4 20.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the plaintiff
Ex.A5 20.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the plaintiff
Ex.A6 22.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
II ADJ/TDM
Page 36 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 36/39
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the plaintiff
Ex.A7 25.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the plaintiff
Ex.A8 26.06.1982 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the plaintiff
Ex.A9 17.06.1981 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the Sambantha moorthy
Ex.A10 18.02.2022 Certified copy of release deed executed by the
1
st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant
Ex.A11 18.04.2022 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
2
nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant
Ex.A12 - Online copy of Patta No.704
Ex.A13 - Online copy of “A” register
Ex.A14 05.01.2022 Kist receipt
Ex.A15 _ Online copy of guideline value
Ex.A16 _ Application under Right to Information Act given by
Advocate for the Aurovile foundation and the order passed
by District Registrar, Tindivanam.
Ex.A17 01.01.2022
to 24.10.2022 Online copy of encumbrance certificate
Ex.A18 - Adangal register issued by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,Vanur
Ex.A19 06.01.1972 Certified copy of gift deed executed by the
Geetha in favour of the Govindarajaulu
II ADJ/TDM
Page 37 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 37/39
Defendants side documents:
Ex.B1 11.02.1959 Certified copy of partition deed
Ex.B2 06.01.1972 Certified copy of gift deed executed by the
Geetha in favour of the Venkatrama naidu
Ex.B3 20.12.1981 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sambandamoorthy in favour of the Aurobindo.
Ex.B4 19.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Venkatrama Naidu in favour of the plaintiff
Ex.B5 - Certified copy of Legal heir certificate of Venkatrama
naidu
Ex.B6 18.02.2022 Certified copy of release deed executed by the
1
st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant
Ex.B7 24.02.2022 Letter from Tahsildar, Vanur
Ex.B8 18.04.2022 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
2
nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant
Ex.B9 27.06.2022 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Prabakar in favour of the 3rd defendant
Ex.B10 - True copy of Adangal Fasali 1403 to 1430
Ex.B11 - Online copy of Patta No.704
Ex.B12 - Online copy of Patta No.3207
Ex.B13 - Online copy of Patta No.704
Ex.B14 - Online copy of ‘A’ register
Ex.B15 - Online copy of ‘A’ register
Ex.B16 - Online copy of ‘A’ register
II ADJ/TDM
Page 38 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 38/39
Ex.B17 - Online copy of Patta No.3282
Ex.B18 - Online copy of ‘A’ register
Ex.B19 - Online copy of Patta No.3206
Ex.B20 - ‘A’ Register -True copy- Ex.B21 - ‘Adangal Fasali 1410 -True copy- Ex.B22 - FMB -True copy- Ex.B23 24.08.2022 Letter to Tahsildar, Vanur
Ex.B24 13.12.2022 Proceedings of the District Registrar, Tindivanam
Ex.B25 15.12.2022 Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate
Ex.B26 04.01.2023 Xerox copy of first information report
Ex.B27 31.01.2023 Name list of patta holder issued by Tahsildar,Vanur
Ex.B28 - Photos
Ex.B29 - CD
Ex.B30 - Online copy of patta no.3344
Ex.B31 06.01.1972 Certified copy of gift deed executed by the
Lakshmi kanthammal in favour of the Govindarajaulu
Ex.B32 06.01.1972 Certified copy of gift deed executed by the
Geetha in favour of the Govindarajaulu
Ex.B33 01.12.1982 Certified copy of partition deed
Ex.B34 19.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sankar in favour of the Plaintiff
Ex.B35 19.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sumathy in favour of the Plaintiff
Ex.B36 20.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sankar in favour of the Plaintiff
II ADJ/TDM
Page 39 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 39/39
Ex.B37 20.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sumathy in favour of the Plaintiff
Ex.B38 21.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sankar in favour of the Plaintiff
Ex.B39 21.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sumathy in favour of the Plaintiff
Ex.B40 20.08.1992 Certified copy of sale deed executed by the
Sankar in favour of the Plaintiff
Ex.B41 - Online copy of encumbrance certificate
Ex.B42 - Online copy of ‘A’ register
Ex.B43 - Online copy of ‘A’ register
Ex.B44 - Online copy of Chitta
Court Documents:-
ExC1 Commissioner Report
ExC2 Commissioner Plan
Sd/-T.H.MOHAMMED FAROOQ
II Additional District Judge,(FAC),
I Additional District Judge,
Tindivanam.
II ADJ/TDM