(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying to set aside the Decree and Judgment passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam in A.S.No.201 of 2005 dated 13.07.2006 and restore the Decree and Judgment passed by the Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman in O.S.No.15 of 2002 dated 31.01.2003.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, in A.S.No.201 of 2005, dated 13.07.2006, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman, in O.S.No.15 of 2002, dated 31.01.2003.

2. Heard Mr.S.Madhavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.R.Devaraj. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the appellant filed the suit seeking for recovery of possession on the ground that the suit property was originally owned by his father, who purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 18.10.1932 (Ex.A7). The suit property was originally a vacant site and later a superstructure was constructed. The father of the appellant died in the year 1974. Before his demise, there was a partition amongst the brothers through a registered partition deed dated 09.06.1974 and schedule 'C' was allotted in favour of the plaintiff's father to an extent of 18 ½ cents.

4. The further case of the plaintiff is that in the year 1971, the first defendant became a tenant under an oral agreement and was paying rent of Rs.30/- per month. An attempt was made by the first defendant to claim patta over the property and this was objected by the plaintiff. However, the first defendant managed to get the patta in his favour and taking advantage of the same, he started claiming ownership over the property. It is under these circumstances, the present suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of delivery of possession.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that the Thoraya Patta was granted in the name of the first defendant and that this property was, in turn, settled in favour of the third and fourth defendants, and the third and fourth defendants have thus become the absolute owners of the property. Apart from that, insofar as the superstructure is concerned, the property tax is paid by the defendants. Thus, the defendants were claiming ownership over the property and they denied their relationship with the plaintiff as tenants and accordingly, sought for the dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has established ownership over the property and also that the defendants are the tenants in the property and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit as prayed for.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal.

8. The appellate Court, on considering the grounds raised in the appeal and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that there was a genuine dispute in title over the property and therefore, the plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of declaration of title. Apart from that, the appellate Court also found that the plaintiff did not establish that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Accordingly, the appellate Court proceeded to reverse the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed before this Court.

9. When the Second Appeal was admitted, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

               “(1) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in distinguishing that the judgment rendered by the High Court in 1972 Law Weekly, 727 dealing with Grama Natham is not applicable to Natham?

               (2) Whether the lower appellate Court is not equally wrong in distinguishing the judgment in 2000 (1) L.W., 488, since the plaintiff has not established the classification of the suit property which is admittedly a house in the village Natham?

               (3) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in remarking that the suit as framed for possession alone is unsustainable and suggesting him to file a separate suit for possession with declaration?”

10. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on Exhibits A1 and A7 and submitted that the ownership over the property has been sufficiently established and the respondents are attempting to claim ownership through an illegally obtained patta which will not confer title over the property. Therefore, it is contended that the appellate Court ought not to have reversed the well considered judgment of the trial Court.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents placed strong reliance upon Ex.B6 and also Exhibits B1 to B4 to establish that the property is being enjoyed as a owner and there was never a landlordtenant relationship and therefore, it is contended that the findings rendered by the appellate Court is a factual finding and no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and accordingly, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13. The case of the appellant is that the tenancy was oral. The first defendant has specifically denied the fact that there was a landlordtenant relationship between the parties. In turn, the defendant was setting up their right and ownership over the property. The same is evident from the fact that Ex.D6 was the basis on which such ownership was claimed. Insofar as for the superstructure, Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 is relied upon wherein the property tax has been paid for the superstructure.

14. The appellate Court has rendered a finding that the plaintiff did not prove the landlord-tenant relationship. Apart from that, the appellate Court also found that the plaintiff was claiming ownership based on Ex.A1 and A7 and on the other hand, the defendants were claiming ownership based on the Thoraya Patta and the house tax receipts that were paid in their names. Therefore, the appellate Court came to a conclusion that there was a dispute regarding title which warranted the plaintiff to seek for a relief of declaration of title and not a relief of recovery of possession simpliciter.

15. The above finding rendered by the appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality and such finding has been rendered on appreciation of evidence.

16. One main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.B6 Thoraya Patta by itself will not confer any title over the property. The entire law regarding the classification of Natham lands and the scope of Thoraya Patta was dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in R.A.V.Kovil Annayya Charities v. The District Collector, reported in 2023 (5) L.W. 616. There is no quarrel on the principle of law that patta by itself will not confer any title over the property. However, that will not apply in a case where the patta is granted by the Government to a person who is in possession of the natham land. Such a patta certainly is equivalent to a title document insofar as the person in whose favour such a patta is granted. This position of law has been reiterated in many judgments passed by this Court.

17. In view of the above, as rightly found by the appellate Court, both the parties are claiming right and ownership over the property by relying upon certain documents. Therefore, there is a dispute regarding the title over the property. Hence, the plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of declaration of title and not merely a relief for recovery of possession simpliciter and more particularly, when the landlord and tenant relationship itself was not established.

18. In the light of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court is answered accordingly against the appellant and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court and as a result, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.