Supreme Court of India

SOWRASHTRA VIPRA SABHAversusTHE NAMAKKAL MUNICIPALITY AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1279
Decided: 4 November 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The land vested in the State after due ejectment under Section 339(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, and the appellant had no title; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The Sowrashtara Vipra Sabha filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and a perpetual injunction over land it claimed as an estate. The respondents, Namakkal Municipality and others, argued that the land was Pavadi land which, after the abolition of the estate, vested in the State free of encumbrances. Lower courts held that the appellant had no title and ordered his ejectment; the municipality served notice and took possession under Section 339(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, thereby vesting the land in the State. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, contending that his title was perfected. The Court found that the land was lawfully vested in the State after due ejectment and that there was no ground for interference, dismissing the appeal without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant possessed a valid title to the land claimed as an estate.
Whether the land is Pavadi land that vested in the State upon abolition of the estate.
Whether the eviction and possession taken under Section 339(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, lawfully transferred title to the State.
Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the lower courts' order of ejectment in these circumstances.

Subjects

declaration of titleperpetual injunctionPavadi landmunicipal actejectmentstate vested landspecial leavecivil appeal

Judgment

                     SOWRASHTRA VIPRA SABHA.                                      A
                                      v.
            THE NAMAKKAL MUNICIPALITY AND ANR.

                           NOVEMBER 4, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                               B

        Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

       S.339(2)-Pavadi land-Suit for declaration of title and perpetual
injunction on the ground that the property being an estate, plaintiffperfected    C
his title-Suit dismissed by all courts below-Notice served on plaintiff by
affixure and possession of land taken-Held, the land vested in State after
due ejectment ofplaintiff-Not a fit case for interference by this Court.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14779 of
1996.                                                                             ])

     From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.995 of the Madras High
CQurt in S.A. No. 2235 of 1983.

    S. Sivasubramaniam, R. Nedumaran and V.G. Pragasam for the
Appellant.                                                                        E
        R. Mohan and T. Raja for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                  F
        Leave granted.

        We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

      This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned           G
single Judge of the High Court of Madras, made on September l, 1996 in
SA. No. 2235/83.

      The appellant had filed a suit for declaration of title and for perpetual
injunction. The contention raised by the appellant was that the property
being an estate he has perfected his title thereto. The case of the respondents   H
                                      391
    392                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A is that it is a Pavadi land and after the abolititon of the estate, it stood
  vested in the State free from all encumbrances. All the courts below have
  concurrently found that the appellant has no title to the property but he
  was in possession of the property. Accordingly, a direction was given to
  have him ejected in accordance with law. After the judgment was rendered
  by the High Court, the notice was given to the appellant on September 1,
B 1995 and they refused to receive the notice. As a result, on 2.9.1995,
  notice was served on the appellant by affixture and possession thereof was
  taken on 9.9.1995 under the provisions of Section 339(2) of the Tamil
  Nadu Municipal Act. Thus the land stood vested in the State after due
  ejectment by the appellant. It is stated that it is the part of the public bus
  stand at the site in question and that the public passenger buses enter through
C it. A plan was filed in that behalf marking in red the portion which is part
  of the bus stand. Under these circumstances, we do not think that it is a
  case warranting interference.

          The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

D R.P.                                                       Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "declaration of title"Sign in to search