S.A.No.1059 of 1999 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 30.04.2025 DELIVERED ON : 29.05.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN S.A.No.1059 of 1999 Mohammed Ali. ... Appellant/1st Respondent/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Mani Pillai (Died) ... 1st Respondent/Appellant/1st Defendant 2.Kannaiah 3.Mohana ... Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 2 & 3/ Defendants 2 & 3 4.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by District Collector, Pudukottai District. ... 4th Respondent/4th Respondent/4th Defendant 5.Packiyam (Died) (Memo dated 24.01.2023 filed as R5 died and R6 to R12 who are already on record are recorded as Lrs of the deceased 5th respondent. Recorded) 6.Chandra (Died) 7.Selvaraj 8.Malarkodi 9.Naga Rethinam 10.Panchavarnam 11.Arumugam 12.Sumathi (R5 to R12 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased 1st respondent vide Court order dated 30.06.2003 made in C.M.P.(MD).Nos.11319 to 11321 of 2016.) 1/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 13.Ambika ... Respondents (R13 is brought on record as Lr of the deceased 6th respondent vide Court order dated 15.06.2023 made in C.M.P.(MD).Nos.1145 and 1147 of 2023) PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai passed in A.S.No.40 of 1997 dated 12.06.1998 reversing the decree and judgment of the District Munsif, Aranthangi passed in O.S.No.266 of 1991, dated 13.12.1993. For Appellants : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.K.Baalasundharam, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Paranjothi for R7 to R12 Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian for R4 Government Advocate No Appearance for RR2, 3 & 13 JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai passed in A.S.No.40 of 1997 dated 12.06.1998 reversing the decree and judgment of the District Munsif, Aranthangi passed in O.S.No.266 of 1991, dated 13.12.1993. 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 2.The brief averments made in the plaint: Suit in O.S.No.266 of 1991 was filed by Mohammed Ali against Mani Pillai and others by impleading State Government as a party stating that he purchased the property from the third defendant namely Mohana on 09.07.1987. Originally the suit property belongs to one Mani Pillai. The properties were brought for revenue auction sale by the State Government. In that revenue auction sale one Rengasamy purchased the property for Rs.10,010/-. It was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 22.02.1976. Rengasamy executed the settlement deed in favour of one Kannaiah. Kannaiah is closely related to Rengasamy. Later Kannaiah executed settlement deed in favour of his wife Mohana. Mohana in turn sold the property as mentioned above to the plaintiff on 09.07.1987. Possession was handed over. But, Mani Pillai continued to be in possession as permissive occupant. On that ground he filed a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. 3.The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant: The first defendant Mani Pillai filed the statement repeating the 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 very same averments made by him in O.S.No.319 of 1990 stating that he purchased the vacant site on 22.02.1957. After that he put up construction for living. Ever since he is in possession and enjoyment. Kannaiah claims right over the property through gift deed by one Rengasamy. Rengasamy says that the property was brought for sale by the Government under the revenue recovery proceedings. But, no notice was received by Mani Pillai. So the proceedings are not legal. So when the revenue recovery proceedings is not legal, the purchase alleged to have been made by Rengasamy and subsequent documents are not valid under law. So he filed a suit in O.S.No.315 of 1990 seeking declaration and for permanent injunction. 4.The averments are repeating in the written statement filed by the second defendant. So it need not be extracted. 5.The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the fourth defendant namely the State Government are as follows: The State Government says that the property belongs to Mani Pillai was brought for revenue auction. But, that property is not related to 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 the present suit property. 6.On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession? 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties? 4. To what other relief? 7.On the side of the plaintiff one witness was examined and 15 documents were marked. On the side of the defendants four witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked. 8.This suit was tried along with O.S.No.315 of 1990 filed by Mani Pillai as mentioned above. 9.At the conclusion of the joint trial process the trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1993 dismissed the suit in O.S.No.315 of 1990 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.266 of 1991 as prayed for with 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 costs. Against which appeal was preferred before the appellate Court namely the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, in A.S.Nos.40 & 41 of 1997. 10.A.S.No.40 of 1997 was filed by Mani Pillai against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.266 of 1991. Similarly, the very same Mani Pillai filed A.S.No.41 of 1997 against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.315 of 1990. The appellate Court heard both the appeals in common and dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.41 of 1997 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court for some other reason namely due to non joinder of necessary parties. 11.A.S.No.40 of 1997 was allowed. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.266 of 1991 was set aside. The suit was dismissed without any costs. Against which this second appeal is filed by Mohammed Ali. 12.At the time of admission the following substantial question of law was framed. 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 1. Whether the sale in favour of appellants vendor made as per the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act is invalid for want of delivery of possession through Court and issue of sale Certificate? 13.Before we go into the main issue the background facts may be kept in mind. 14.As mentioned in the pleadings of both the parties, the suit property originally belonged to Mani Pillai. The Government of Tamil Nadu brought the property under dispute for sale under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, since default was made by Mani Pillai in paying licence fee to the Government for having obtained licence for conducting Toddy Shop in 1972. It is the specific case of Mohammed Ali. But as mentioned above Government says that even though revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against Mani Pillai for his default, but suit property is not covered under the proceedings. 15.To clarify whether the suit property is covered under the revenue recovery act proceedings, the Government was directed to 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 produce the entire file. But it could not produce it in spite of sufficient opportunity. Even before the trial Court that file was not produced. 16.The other aspect is that Mani Pillai says that no notice was issued to him before bringing the property for sale. In the absence of any such statutory notice, the revenue sale itself is void and illegal. Apart from that another contention that was raised is that subsequent to the alleged sale, Rengasamy did not take delivery of the property within one year stipulated under the Act. So the plaintiff, who purchased the property, after passing through many hand cannot sustain a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. This is the sum and substance of the issue involved. 17.Another fact that was brought to the notice of this Court is that suit in O.S.No.304 of 1982 was filed by the State Government against Mani Pillai is for recovery of Rs.5,135.60, before the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi. It was decreed. The Government has stated that Mani Pillai took Toddy Shop No.9 for the year 1972-1973. Auction was confirmed in favour of Mani Pillai, licence was granted. But failed to pay 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 the licence amount. 18.So the Toddy Shop was brought for fresh auction, purchased, by some other person Government suffered loss of revenue. For recovering the above said amount with interest, suit was filed. 19.But, no where in the written statement, the Government had stated that the property was brought for sale in 1972 itself. Rengasamy purchased the same in public auction. 20.Similarly Mani Pillai has not stated anything about the revenue proceedings. The suit was decreed as prayed for with costs by the trial Court on 27.08.1986 itself. 21.The Judgment copy was made available to this Court by the trial Court in response to the letter written by the Registry as per the order of this Court. A clarification was sought from the trial Court as to whether any Execution Petition was filed by the Government. But it is informed that till 2002 no EP was filed by the Government. Now in the 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 present Mani Pillai says that no notice was issued and received by him in respect of the revenue proceedings. So it is not valid under law as mentioned above. How this escaped from notice of the Court is not known. Because the suit under appeal as well as the above said suit in O.S.No.304 of 1982 was tried by the very same Court. The trial Court ought to have taken a minimum effort to peruse its own judgment in O.S.No.304 of 1982. It failed. So also the appellate Court. 22.Now a short point was raised by the appellant to the effect that Mani Pillai being a defaulter has no consideration at all. He allowed the property to be brought for sale and now he cannot be permitted to say that the revenue recovery proceedings itself is not valid under law. 23.Moreover the technical defects pointed out by Mani Pillai may not arise at all. The appellant being a bonafide purchaser for a value should not be made suffer. On that ground he wants the appeal to be allowed. 24.But, it is very unfortunate that the appellate Court dismissed the 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 suit filed by Mani Pillai in O.S.No.315 of 1990 due to the non joinder of necessary parties. Mani Pillai has not filed any appeal against the Judgment in O.S.No.315 of 1990. Both the suits were tried jointly and evidence were recorded in common. The question of non joinder in O.S.No.315 of 1990 ought not to have been taken as a defect by the appellate Court. 25.Whatever it may be damage has already been done. But as pointed out earlier the only point to be decided is whether the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against Mani Pillai is valid under law. That can be decided in O.S.No.266 of 1991 itself. Since the parties are one and the same without minding it the appellate Court recorded finding in O.S.No.315 of 1990. 26.Similarly another aspect is proof of the settlement deed executed in favour of DW1 by Rengasamy. It appears that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not take that issue, since the execution of settlement deed in favour of DW1 by Rengasamy is denied by Mani Pillai that document ought to have been proved by examining any one of 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 the attesting witness, since Rengasamy is no more now. But no steps have been taken by Kannaiah in this regard. It escaped the notice of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 27.Another defect is that when Revenue Recovery proceedings is disputed, DW4 who was examined, stated that he is working in Excise Department; For taking revenue recovery proceedings they handed over the file to the Regular Tahsildar, who initiated action. 28.But it appears that none from the Revenue Department was examined by the Government to prove that the revenue proceedings has been taken in a proper manner. 29.So, many defects, illegality and irregularity were pointed out by Mani Pillai before the trial Court and the appellate Court stating that disregarding the specific procedure set out in Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act the auction had been conducted. Even though there is a finding by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that revenue recovery proceedings has been initiated in a and proper manner unless 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 the Officers from the Revenue Department is examined by producing the relevant file, I am of the considered view that the trial Court and appellate Court have committed a mistake in recording such a finding. 30.More specifically as mentioned above, O.S.No.304 of 1982 was filed by the Government for recovery of Rs.5,136.60 from Mani Pillai. But, in the documents produced by the Government it is seen that property was brought for sale for arrear mount of Rs.10,000.68, this discrepancy is also to be properly clarified by the Revenue Authorities. As mentioned above even though contention was raised by the appellant that the irregularity alleged to have been committed in the revenue recovery proceedings will not invalidate the sale, I am not expressing any opinion on that issue now. As mentioned above, the suit was decreed on 27.08.1986. Ex.B5 the confirmation of sale was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, dated 26.02.1976, wherein it is stated that Mani Pillai was licencee for T.S.No.9 in Kayakadu Village and T.S.No.20 in Rathina Kottai Village. But, in O.S.No.304 of 1982 T.S.No. 9 Kayakadu Village alone is stated. This discrepancy must also be properly explained by the revenue Authorities. In Ex.B10, we find the 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 shop No.9 in Kayakadu Village and shop No.20 in Rathina Kottai. When the Government has brought the property for sale for both the shops, how the suit came to be filed for shop No.9 in Kayakadu Village also must be properly explained. 31.So unless these things are properly brought on record by way of documentary and oral evidence, the right of both the parties cannot be finally and completely resolved. 32.When there is defect on both sides I am of the considered view that the matter requires to be remitted back to the trial Court by granting liberty to both the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence touching and answering the above said points now pointed out by this Court. Without going into other aspects on the arguments advanced on both sides the judgment and decree passed by both the courts are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court with the above said liberty. The trial Court is directed to decide the issue afresh within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, considering the oldness of the matter. 14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 33.With the above said directions, this second appeal stands disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. 29.05.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM To 1.The Additional District Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. 2.The District Munsif, Aranthangi. 3.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1059 of 1999 G.ILANGOVAN ,J. TM S.A.No.1059 of 1999 29.05.2025 16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis