Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned title to and possession of land claimed by Sowrashtra Vipra Sabha, the appellant, against the Namakkal Municipality and another, the respondents. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, contending that the property was an estate and that it had perfected title thereto. The respondents maintained that the land was Pavadi land and, after the abolition of the estate, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. All the courts below concurrently found that the appellant had no title to the property but was in possession. A direction was given to have the appellant ejected in accordance with law. After the High Court of Madras passed its order in Second Appeal No.2235/83, notice was given to the appellant, which was refused; notice was then served by affixture, and possession was taken on 9.9.1995 under Section 339(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Act. The land was stated to be part of a public bus stand, with public passenger buses entering through it. In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that it had perfected title by possession as an estate, while the respondents argued that the land had vested in the State and ejectment had been duly carried out. The Supreme Court noted the concurrent findings of no title and the fact that possession had already been taken. It observed that the land stood vested in the State after due ejectment and that it formed part of a public bus stand. The Court held that no case was made out for interference. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition - Non-Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact - Constitution of India, Article 136 - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of all courts below that the appellant had no title to the property but was in possession; the land vested in the State free from encumbrances after the abolition of the estate; Held that possession alone does not confer title and no case for interference under Article 136 (Paras Not mentioned). B) Municipal Law - Ejectment and Vesting of Land - Procedure Under Section 339(2) - Tamil Nadu Municipal Act, Section 339(2) - After the High Court judgment, notice was given to the appellant, refused, and served by affixture; possession was taken on 9.9.1995 under Section 339(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Act; the land stood vested in the State and formed part of a public bus stand; Held that ejectment was lawful and the land vested in the State (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had perfected title to the property as an estate; whether the High Court's order directing ejectment under Section 339(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Act was lawful; whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; no costs. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings; land stood vested in State after ejectment; public bus stand use recognised.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on title and possession
- land vested in State free from encumbrances after abolition of estate
- ejectment under Section 339(2) of Tamil Nadu Municipal Act
- possession alone does not confer title
- public purpose use as bus stand
- no interference under special leave jurisdiction
