CRP(MD)/2707/2026 of Jeyaprakash Vs Arrasappan on 1 October 2026

ORDER

This petition is filed against the order dated 03.06.2026 passed in IA.No.3 of 2026 in OS.No.54 of 2025 by the District Munsif, Devakottai.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant in the main suit and the first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction.

3. The revision petitioner contended that the first respondent/plaintiff claimed title to the suit property on the basis of a sale deed, dated 12.05.1966. The plaintiff further claimed that the property purchased under the said sale deed originally formed part of Old Natham Survey No.103 and that, during the Natham settlement, an extent of three cents was erroneously classified as Sarkar Natham Kaliyidam and assigned a new Natham Survey No.260/4. However, according to the revision petitioner, the sale deed dated 12.05.1966 relates to Old Natham Survey No.164 and does not contain any reference to Old Natham Survey No.103 or the adjoining properties. The revision petitioner therefore contended that the suit had been instituted in respect of Old Natham Survey No.103, which is an independent survey number in the revenue records, despite the absence of any reference to the said survey number in the plaintiff’s title document.

4. The revision petitioner contended that the plaintiff had not produced any evidence to establish the correlation between Old Natham Survey No.164, referred to in the sale deed, dated 12.05.1966, and Old Natham Survey No.103, in which the suit property is situated. It was further contended that the plaintiff had not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged correlation between the two survey numbers. In the absence of such evidence, the revision petitioner argued that the plaintiff’s claim was baseless and that the plaintiff had neither a valid cause of action nor any enforceable right to institute the suit.

5. The trial Court, however, dismissed the petition, observing that the defects and discrepancies pointed out by the revision petitioner concerning the identity of the property and the correlation between the survey numbers could be considered only during the trial. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 5 also appeared and submitted that the issue raised by the revision petitioner involves a mixed question of law and fact, which can be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, he contended that the question regarding the correlation between the survey numbers and the identity of the suit property should be determined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title and a consequential injunction in respect of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, his grandmother, Muthammal, purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 12.05.1966, bearing Document No.685 of 1966, registered at Kandadevi Village. The plaintiff further contended that a building had been constructed on the property and that the same had been in the possession and enjoyment of his grandmother. According to the plaintiff, the original survey number of the suit property was Old Natham Survey No.103.

8. After the demise of the said Muthammal, the property devolved upon her legal heirs. The revision petitioner further contended that, during the resurvey conducted in the year 1992, the revenue authorities failed to assign Natham patta for the entire extent of 10 cents. Instead, the property was resurveyed and assigned New Survey No.261/10, and patta was granted for only 5.5 cents under Patta No.111. According to the plaintiff, the reduction in the extent of the property and the grant of patta for a lesser extent were erroneous. The plaintiff further claimed that the property was subsequently settled in his favour and alleged that the revision petitioner was creating disputes over the property with a mala fide intention.

9. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants had already submitted a petition seeking the grant of patta in respect of the suit property. He stated that the trial Court had directed the revenue authorities to conduct a proper enquiry and grant patta in accordance with law. However, according to the plaintiff, the defendants were attempting to obtain patta by exerting their influence over the revenue authorities. Alleging that the defendants were attempting to interfere with his rights over the suit property, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title and a consequential permanent injunction.

10. The revision petitioner contended that the plaintiff had manipulated the survey number mentioned in the sale deed and obtained patta in respect of the suit property without any valid entitlement. On that basis, the revision petitioner argued that the plaintiff had no cause of action or enforceable right to maintain the suit and that the suit was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, the revision petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint.

11. On considering the rival contentions and the records, it is seen that the trial Court was of the view that the question as to whether Old Survey No.103 correlates with Survey No.164, or whether the suit property situated in Old Survey No.103 belongs to the defendant, can be decided only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

12. This Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties primarily concerns the identity of the suit property and the correlation between the old and new survey numbers. The question as to whether the plaintiff had manipulated the survey number in the title document or whether Old Survey No.103 corresponds to Survey No.164 requires proper adjudication on the basis of the relevant documentary and oral evidence. The role of the revenue authorities, who are also parties to the proceedings, may likewise require consideration in determining the survey particulars and the alleged discrepancy. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court is required to examine the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, rather than adjudicate disputed questions of fact on the basis of the defence raised by the defendant. In the present case, the disputed issues concerning the identity of the property and the alleged manipulation of the survey particulars cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage.

13. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application, holding that both parties should be afforded a fair opportunity to establish their respective claims through evidence. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or other ground warranting interference with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NS

To

1. The District Munsif Court, Devakottai.

2. The Land Administration Commissioner, Land Administrative Office, 2nd Street, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The District Collector Office, District Collectorate Office, Sivagangai District.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

5. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

R.POORNIMA, J. NS CRP(MD) No. 2707 of 2026 01-10-2026