IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdic on)

W.P. No. 24746/2018

K. Subramanian @ Ponnimani,
Son of KaliannaGounder,
No.58, Padamudipalayam,
Paramathivelur Town &Taluk Namakkal District ………Pe oner

Vs.

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Thiruchengode,
Namakkal District.

2. The Tahsildar,
ParamathivelurTaluk,
Namakkal District.

3. K. Manian,
Son of KandasamyGounder,
No.61, Kandanagar Ka usalai, Sultanpet,
Paramathivelur Town &Taluk Namakkal District. ….Respondents

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THIRD RESPONDENT K.MANIAN

I, K. Manian, Son of Kandasamy Gounder, aged about 61 years,
Residing at No.61, Kandanagar Ka usalai, Sultanpet, Paramathivelur Town
&Taluk
Namakkal District, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows

1) I am in the possession of the property men oned in the case which is

located in the Namakkal district, paramathi velur taluk, punjai Idayar
melmugam village
Survey no, 383/2E along with my brother. This is the only pathway which is
soley allocated for assessing the other proper es belonging to us including my
house
Located in the survey No.383/2D, 385 and 387. The same pathway came into
my possession by the way of inheritance.
I submit that my family was in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the
property for the past 80 years since 1944 by the way of sale deed dated
09.12.1943 (doc.no 31/1944) and we did not sell any piece of land in the
survey number 383/2.

2) I submit that in survey no. 383/2, measuring an extent of 4.38 acres at punjai
Idayar village paramathi velur taluk was originally owned by chinna muthu
gounder in the year 1927 and on 04.06.1927 sons of chinna muthu gounder (1)
marappa gounder (2) kalianna gounder (3) karupanna gounder and (4) palani
gounder executed a registered par on deed (document no. 764/1927) with
respect to the above property and other property. In the above said par on
deed the said (3) karupanna gounder was allo ed the land in the western side
measuring 2.19 acres out of 4.38 acres which was excluding the pathway of 10
links width and 370 links length in survey no. 383/2 as per schedule “C”. the
said karupanna gounder is none other than the grandfather of the pe oner.(
ேம ப கிராம திய ச ேவ 383/2 ெந ஏ .4.38 த ைவ .4.15.0 இதி
ெத ற தி 385 ெந ப ஓர தி ேரா லி கிழ ர
மார பக ட பாக தி ேபாக கிழேம 370 லி ெத வட 10
லி க வழி ேபாக மதி ேம ர பாதி நில தி 2.19 த ைவ 2.7.6
இத ச கா த ைவ 5 மட மதி .12.5.6). The remaining extent
of 2.19 acres out of 4.38 acres in the eastern side of the survey no.383/2 which
had the pathway as a part of it was allo ed to (1) Marappa gounder as per the
schedule ‘A’ of the par on deed.
(383/2 .ஏ .4.38 த ைவ .4.15 இதி கிழ ற ேப பாதி டான
2.19 த ைவ .2.7.6 நில இத ச கா த ைவ 5 மட
மதி .12.5..6

ேம ப ச ைவ ெந ப க பக ட பாக தி ெத ,385
ெந ப வட , ேரா கிழ , இத ம திய கிழ ற
பாக தி ேபாக வழி தட 370 லி நள , ெத வட 10 லி க
அகல ள நில இத மதி .5.00)

so it is to be noted that by the above men oned par on deed the pe oner’s
grandfather karupanna gounder doesnot own any rights in the pathway. And it
is hidden in the court knowingly by the pe oner

3. I humbly submit that the said Marappagounder sold the said property

measuring an extent of 2.19 Acres in Eastern side out of 4.38 Acres in Survey

No.383/2 to his brother PalaniGounder on 12.07.1940 as per Sale deed

registered as Document No.1231 of 1940. Subsequently, the said PalaniGounder

sold the said property to Karuppanna Gounder, Son of ChinnavangliGounder (my

grandfather) on 09.12.1943 by way of Sale Deed registered as Document No.31

of 1944. In the said Sale Deed dated 09.12.1943, it was clearly men oned in the

Schedule of property that usual cart track pathway rights of seven Muzham

width on North to south cart track leading from Paramathi Road to property

which was the part of the property sold under Sale Deed dated 09.12.1943. The

said Karuppanna Gounder, Son of Chinna Vangligounder is my grandfather. It was

also men oned that Palani Gounder has no more rights in the pathway. (பரம தி
ேரா லி ெத வட 7 ழ அகல தி இ த நில தி மா லா ேபா

வ தட பா திய ரா ேச தா கிைரய . ேம ப காைளகள இன

என ப கி ைல.)

In between this karupanna gounder S/o of chinna muthu gounder (grand

father of the pe oner sold a piece of land measuring 10 links width in north to

south and 200 links length in east to west in the southern side of his 2.19 acres

out of 4.38 acres in 383/2 in 1963 to papanna gounder via. Sale deed registered

as document no. 1445/1963. This piece of land is running along with the

pathway and it is adjoined land the pathway. In the above men oned sale deed

it was clearly men oned in boundary details the land is north to land belonging

karupanna gounder (my grand father). Same piece of land was men oned as

land not belonging to them in the par on deed executed between the

pe oner and his brother in 1997.(1055/1997). They had hidden these facts to

the court in the affidavit

4. Later in the year 1969 my grandfather Karuppanna gounder,

S/o.Chinnavangili gounder and my father Kandasamy gounder and his brother

Vangiligounder entered into a Par on Deed (Doc.No.927/1969 dated

01.07.1969) In which my father was allo ed the property of extent 2.03 Acres

out of 2.19 Acres in S.F.No.383/2 the boundary details of property north of

pathway men oned in the schedule D, East to the Chi ukaruppanna land

(Grandfather of the pe oner) South to the Ganapathi Gounder land. West to

Periyanalliyanna gounder land. The above men oned pathway which is in

dispute is men oned in the schedule D which can be possessed by my father and

his brother (0.16 acres of 2.19 acres in S.F.No.383/2).

During 1986 when government updated UDR the survey number the

government sub divided the land further into as following

s.no Survey Extent in Name of pa adar

number hectare

1 383/2A 0.76.0 K. Kalianna Gounder (Father of the

pe oner)

2 383/2B 0.05.0 C. Arumugam. (He purchased from

pe oner's father on 14.12.1964)

3 383/2C 0.07.5 N. KozhunthaGounder (He purchased from

pe oner's father on 20.11.1964)

4 383/2D 0.82.0 K. KandasamyGounder (my father)

5 383/2E 0.16.0 . C. KaruppannaGounder (my grand father)

2. K. Kandasamy (my father)

3. K. VangliGounder (my father’s brother)

Before UDR all the extent of 4.38 acres were in in sub division 383/2
 It should be also noted if we sum up extent of land held by pe oners

father(383/2A, and land sold by him (383/2B and 383/2C) it is an extent of 2.19

acres and if we sum up the extent held by my family(383/2D and 383/2E) it is an

extent of 2.19 acres.

during the year 1986 when the government updated UDR the name of my

grandfather was present but there was mistake in his father’s name(it was

mistakenly spelled as chinna muthu gounder in place of chinna vangili gounder)

by using opportunity pe oner bribed some officials (Village administrator

Officer, Tmt. Prema and Zonal Deputy Thasildar, Thiru .vijaykanth, with various

kinds of monetary and non monetary benefits and using his poli cal influence

he pressured them to mutate his name in place of my grandfather’s name

without any suppor ng and valid documents prescribed by the revenue

department and also for the above men oned muta on the pe oner provided

the documents which were not related to the S.F.No.383/2E (in fact it was a

correc on document for the par on deed between the pe oner and his

brother rela ng to the S.F.No.383/2A. So the order issued by Deputy Thasildar

on 17.03.2017 (Order No.2017/0103/09/052664) is not valid. Same was issued

unlawfully by the zonal Deputy Thasildar.

On 02.06.2018 we came to know that the pe oner he would block the

path way and prevent as from entering our land and a er that we checked the
pa a and came to know that pe oner’s name was included in the pa a . So we

immediately filed a pe on to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the RDO

summoned and enquired both the par es and issued the order to remove the

pe oner’s name from the pa a (Moo.Mo-2636/2018/U.O) it should also be

noted that the pe oner did not appear in person and did not submit any valid

suppor ng documents

RDO issued the order on the following grounds:-

i. Pe on did not submit any documents that accede this ownership in the

pathway.

ii. Document that proofs pe oners inheritance from his grandfather directly.

iii.Also the document No.31/1944 clearly men oned the Sale of land and the

pathway which is located in the land parcel is sold in its enterity and it is

cleared men oned that Palanigounder has no rights in the pathway

therea er.

Counters for-----

(Para 2) Moreover Karuppannagounder grand father of the

pe oner has no rights in the pathway as per Par on Deed of

1927.
 (Para 5) It should be also noted that in the year 1997 a par on

deed was executed between the pe oner and his brother( doc .no.

1055/1997),

In the above men oned par on deed the pathway was not

men oned (survey no. 383/2E) in any form since the pe oner nor

his father and his grand father had no possession of the pathway

and was not enjoying the pathway rights.

Also in the year 1963 a piece of land between the pathway and the

pe oner’s property was sold to papanna gounder so there was no

link between his property and the pathway physically.(document

no. 1445/1963)

Also the pe oner tried to hide the facts of the case in his affidavit

(paragraph 3) by not men oning the actual words said in the the sale deed dated

09.12.1943 i.e it was clearly men oned in the Schedule of property that usual

cart track pathway rights of seven Muzham width on North to south cart track

leading from Paramathi Road to property which was the part of the property sold

under Sale Deed dated 09.12.1943. The said Karuppanna Gounder, Son of Chinna

Vangligounder is my grandfather. It was also men oned that Palani Gounder has

no more rights in the pathway. (பரம தி ேரா லி ெத வட 7 ழ

அகல தி இ த நில தி மா லா ேபா வ தட பா திய ரா

ேச தா கிைரய . ேம ப காைளகள இன என ப கி ைல.)

Also the statement given by the pe oner in para 5 is also self

contradic ng as the said pathway is in the survey no.383/2E he and his brother

was allo ed the land in survey no. 383/2A also there was no men on about the

survey number 383/2E or the enjoyment rights of the said pathway in survey

number 383/2E. so the said document was not rela ng to the pathway.

It should be noted that Rdo also gave opportunity to appeal at DRO

within 30 days(it was also hidd3en the affidavit)

So I kindly request you to dismiss the case and order the pe oner to

issued compensa on and order for the departmental disciplinary ac on for

issuing unlawful order on zonal Deputy Thasildar (thiru. Vijaykanth) and VAO

(tmt Prema). If it was handled according to the law me of the court and

advocates would have been not wasted.

Addi onal document a ached

Sale deed between karupanna gounder s/o of chinna muthu gounder and

paapanna gounder dated 3.10.1963 document no 1445/1963

Documents in the affidavit by the pe oner to be taken for reference

1,2,3,6,9,11,12,13,14,15,16