Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 134 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act,
  • Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 134 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act,
  • Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    A. SARDHAR v. FATHIMA BEEVI

    CRP No.430 of 2023

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    DATED : 03.04.2023

    CORAM

    THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

    CRP No.430 of 2023 and

    C.M.P.No.3614 of 2023 A.Sardhar

    ... Petitioner

    -Vs-

    1. Fathima Beevi

    2. Syed Shabudeen

    3. The Village Panchayat President, Pallipettai Village,

    Acharapakkam Post,

    Madurantagam Taluk,

    Chengalpattu District.

    ... Respondents

    PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 28.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.07 of 2022 in O.S.No.135 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Madurantagam.

    For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

    For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Subramanian for R1 & R2

    Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan

    AGP for R3

    *****

    1/6

    O R D E R

    This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 28.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.07 of 2022 in O.S.No.135 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Madurantagam.

    2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that he has filed an application in I.A.No.7 of 2022 in O.S.No.135 of 2016 under Order

    1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC to implead the third respondent/Village Panchayat represented by President Pallipettai Village, Acharapakkam as 3rd defendant in the suit stating that the suit property is meikal promboke in S.No.32/3 to an extent of 0.80 cents, but the suit filed by the plaintiffs is only for an extent of 18 acres. The meikal poramboke means it is a land for grazing by the animals such as goat, sheep, cow and bullocks. The Village Panchayat is the custodian of all communal lands such as grazing poramboke, thrashing floor, lack burial grounds, topes and etc., under Section 134 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Therefore, the Village Panchayat represented by its President is a necessary party, but he was not added as a party sofar. Hence, the application has been filed for impleading the Village Panchayat President as a party to the suit. The said application was strongly opposed by the respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs stating that already an

    2/6

    application to implead the Government Officials was filed by the Revision petitioner/defendant in I.A.No.179 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 05.09.2017 and hence, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs are enjoying the meikal poramboke. So, the title is vested with Government and therefore, the Village Panchayat President is not a necessary party to the suit. Considering both sides submissions, the Trial Court dismissed the application stating that the proposed 3rddefendant is not necessary party to implead in the suit. Challenging the said findings, the present revision petition has been filed.

    3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submits that at an earlier occasion in an application filed in I.A.No.179 of 2017, he prayed to implead the Collector as a necessary party, but the same was dismissed. However, under Section 134 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, for the poramboke lands namely, grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial-grounds, cattle-stands, cart-stands and topes, the concerned Village Panchayat is the custodian. So, the suit property comes under the Pallipettai village, as such, the Village Panchayat President is necessary party to adjudicate the proceedings with regard to the Meikal Poramboke property.

    3/6

    4. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents 1 & 2 submits that since the defendant caused interference in the suit property, they have filed a suit against him, but there is no cause of action as against the Village Panchayat President and the same was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court. Further, he argued that the nature of the suit property is Meikal Poramboke is admitted fact. Therefore, the Village Panchayat President need not be implicated.

    5. Heard both sides.

    6. On perusal of records, it would reveal that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant, who caused interference in the enjoyment of the suit property with an extent of 0.80 cents of Meikkal Poramboke in S.No.32/3, Pallipettai Village. Admittedly, it is a Meikkal Poramboke, Village Panchayat President is custodian of that property as per Section 134 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Hence, he is necessary party to the suit. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside.

    7. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 28.10.2022 made in I.A.No.07 of 2022 in O.S.No.135 of 2016 passed

    4/6

    by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam. Since the Village Panchayat President being a necessary party, the trial Court is directed to implead him as 3rdDefendant in the suit proceedings. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also closed.

    03.04.2023

    kmi To

    1. The District Munsif Court, Madurantagam.

    5/6

    T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

    kmi CRP No.430 of 2023

    03.04.2023

    6/6

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    A. SARDHAR v. FATHIMA BEEVI
    (Apr 3, 2023)