Madras HC Gives Woman 30 Days To Refile Suit Claiming 60-Year Possession Of Government Land, Which Must Be Numbered Before Maintainability Hearing

The plaintiff claimed title by adverse possession over Government poromboke land and sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction.

After the Tahsildar issued a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, she presented a plaint on 2 June 2023. The District Munsif returned it as barred by Section 14 of the Act; on representation, the court again returned it, reasoning that proceedings under the Act had commenced. The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227, contending that her suit did not challenge the notice or the proceedings under the Act.

The Government argued that the plaint disclosed no adverse possession or cause of action and that the suit effectively challenged the notice.

Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was relied on as the provision said to bar the civil court’s jurisdiction in relation to proceedings under that Act.

The Court also relied on Government of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 767, which held that where a court considers a suit barred by law, it should number the plaint and list it for hearing on maintainability; if it then rejects the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the rejection is a decree under Section 2(2), appealable under Section 96.

The Court observed that the plaint, on its face, did not challenge the notice or proceedings under the 1905 Act; accordingly, Section 14 did not prevent the plaint from being numbered.

It did not decide whether the plaintiff could ultimately establish adverse possession or whether the suit was otherwise maintainable. Rather, applying Ponnusamy, it held that any threshold objection to maintainability should be considered after numbering the plaint and hearing the plaintiff in open court, not by returning the unnumbered plaint.

It directed the plaintiff to represent the plaint within 30 days; upon representation, the Trial Court was to number it, list it for hearing on maintainability, and decide that question on its merits without being influenced by the High Court’s observations on the merits. No costs were ordered, and the Registry was directed to return the original plaint to the plaintiff’s counsel.