Madras High Court· 27 August 2026
Does the clubbing of subdivisions into a single survey number at a resettlement change the ownership or possession of the parties?
A.Roopanandan v. Arulmigu Alavandar Charities
AS.569/1999 · AS No. 569 of 1999
Coram: Justice N. Sathish Kumar · Justice M.Jothiraman
Answer
The clubbing of subdivisions into a single survey number at a resettlement does not change the ownership or possession of the parties.
No. The clubbing of subdivisions into a single survey number at a resettlement does not change the ownership or possession of the parties. When the subdivisions were merged in 1911 the founder's name was clubbed with the joint pattadars of the earlier joint patta; but the holders of that patta, whose successors had always dealt only with their own subdivision, could not suddenly become owners of the whole extent.
Headnote
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — s.7(9) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.1 r.8 — Public trust — Suit by the Executive Officer — Representative suit — Declaration of title — Partition —
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — s.7(9) — Maintainability of a suit by the Executive Officer —
Held: An Executive Officer, whose powers are assigned by the Act, the Rules or a Scheme settled under it, can sue in the name of the religious institution with the approval of the competent authority. (¶41, 43)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.1 r.8 — Common interest is the condition of a representative suit —
Held further: A representative suit for partition is not maintainable where the plaintiffs neither prove that they are the legal heirs of the recorded pattadars nor establish a common interest or common grievance among those represented. (¶48)
Revenue records — Resettlement — Clubbing of subdivisions —
Held further: The merger of subdivisions into a single survey number at a resettlement cannot change the character of ownership or possession, and the holders of one subdivision do not thereby become owners of the whole. (¶59, 64)
Declaration of title — Partition — Burden on the claimant —
Held further: A plaintiff claiming joint ownership must prove it; documentary dealings by the founder over a century, unchallenged, together with kist receipts, leases and property registers, establish the charity's exclusive title. Appeal suits dismissed. (¶70, 81)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountIn the Court's own words
Paragraph 59Ex.A215 is the Discharged Simple Mortgage executed by Alavandar in favour of Shanmugam Chettiar for Rs.2,000/- for which he has mortgaged the lands in Nemmile village in respect of 366.31 acres. Ex.A114 is the Resurvey and Settlement Register of 1911 relating to Pattipulam Village. This is equivalent to Ex.B49. This document shows that O.S.No.168/A to J classified as Government Punja {Government Dry Lands} were clubbed as a single survey number without any sub division in the year 1911. It is pertinent to mention that S.No.168/B measuring 101.23 acres was under Patta No.27 bearing 168/B, the other numbers A to J were comprised only in Patta No.32 in the name of Alavandar. By merger of all those sub divisions into a whole survey number, the name of Alavandar was also clubbed with the joint pattadars of erstwhile joint patta No.27 which relates to S.No.168/B. The erstwhile joint pattadars or their successors of old survey number 168/B, who hold an extent of 101.23 acres cannot suddenly become the owners of 407.16 acres with common interest. The documents relied upon by the defendants as well as the plaintiff charity shows that the pattadars under 1877 Settlement in Ex.A3 relating to S.No.168/B. Their successors in title had dealt with their properties comprised in S.No.168/B with specific boundaries with specific extent. They never owned a joint or common interest in S.No.168/B. The defendants have not placed any document to show that they enjoyed anything more than S.No.168/B.
Paragraph 64A petition dated 11.05.1915 to the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu by Muthukrishna Naicker as Executor of the Will, requested the Sub Collector to remove S.No.168/A to J [Except S.No.168/B] from Joint Patta No.27, erroneously included by survey officials and to restore them to Old Patta No.32. It is seen from Ex.A203, the Joint Patta of 1911 cannot raise any right or title to the defendants in entirety to 407.16 acres merely on the account of merger of all the sub divisions in it and the clubbing of sub divisions into single survey number cannot bring change in character or ownership or possession of the parties. Ex.A136 is the Audit Report dated 20.10.1938 into the Scheme Court shows that the plaintiff charity owned about 300 acres in S.No.168. The total extent accounted in that report in all the villages was 1165 acres of Nanja and Punja lands. Ex.A199 is the patta for the year 1928 which shows Muthukrishna Naicker as one of the pattadars under Patta No.27. Ex.A202 -24.11.1939 is the petition by the Trustees to the Tahsildar Chengalpattu for transfer of pattas in their names representing Alavandar Charities as per Court orders.
Acts & Sections
s.7(9) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959Or.1 r.8 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.4(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of A.Roopanandan v. Arulmigu Alavandar Charities — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →