R.Jothi Meenakshi Sundaram v. Kumbakonam City Municipal Corporation,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN 1.R.Jothi Meenakshi Sundaram 2.B.Rajeswari ... Petitioners -vs.- 1.Kumakonam City Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Thiruvidaimarudur Road, Kumbakonam Town.
2.The Tahsildar, Kumbakonam, Taluk Office, Dr.Moorthy Road, Kumbakonam Town.
3.The Sub Collector, Kumbakonam, Sub Collector's Office, Dr.Moorthy Road, Kumbakonam Taluk.
4.Tamil Nadu Government represented by its Collector, Thanjavur, Collectorate, Trichy Main Road, Thanjavur.
...Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the return order, dated 23.02.2026 passed by the trial Court returning the plaint in unnumbered O.S.No. of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur and consequently, to direct the trial Court to receive and register/number the plaint. For Petitioners :Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R2 to R4 :Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate *****
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition challenges the order of return made by the learned Principal District Judge at Thanjavur, dated 23.02.2026. 2.The Civil Revision Petitioners, as plaintiffs, presented a suit on 07.11.2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Court at Thanjavur. The suit is for a declaration that the suit properties belong to the plaintiffs and to declare that the notice issued by Kumbakonam City Municipal Corporation is null and void. It also seeks the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs property. 3.The case of the plaintiffs is that they had purchased the suit property by way of two registered sale deeds, dated 05.12.1996 and 23.02.1996 from the previous owners. They pleaded that they have been issued with a patta by the Tahsildar at Kumbakonam and that on the basis of these documents, the Kumbakonam Municipality had also mutated the Town Survey Land Register in their name on 12.01.2013. 4.The cause of action seems to be that a notice had been issued by the successor of Kumbakonam Municipality, namely, Kumbakonam City Municipal Corporation on 29.03.2022, treating the property of the plaintiffs as poramboke land (ePh;epiy). The defendants No.1 to 3 are said to have visited the suit property and had orally threatened the plaintiffs to remove the superstructure within a period of 15 days. In default, they would remove the superstructure. Hence, the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
5.The learned Principal District Judge, had, by an order dated 07.11.2025, raised the following questions:
"1)How this suit is maintainable against encroachment from the water bodies as against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Madras vide WP No.1294 of 2009 dated 30.10.2015 has to be explained. 2)How the entry of declaration for entire property is Maintained has to be stated.
3)No documents filed to show the value.
4)Reason for valuing separate permanent injunction has to be given.
5) Southern Boundary and 2nd Item Vary from Document.
6)New Survey Number vary from Document.
7)Fresh third document there has to be attested. Time one month."
6.In response, the plaintiffs asserted by way of a detailed endorsement that the land claimed by them is not a water body, but it is a patta land, to which they have title. For ready reference, the endorsement made by the learned Counsel is scanned and extracted hereunder:
7.Yet again, on 24.11.2025, the learned District Judge returned the plaint on the following grounds:
"1)As per the eviction Notice by D1, there is a water body in the suit survey number. It has to be explained.
2)Previous order of return no 2 to 6 still holds good."
8.In response, a detailed endorsement was made by the plaintiffs, which is scanned and extracted hereunder:
9.Yet again, on 23.02.2026, the learned Judge has returned the plaint holding "no documents filed to show that the suit property is a not water body. Hence returned. Time one month."
10.Aggrieved by the repeated returns, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
11.Heard the learned Counsel. I have gone through the records. 11.The learned Principal District Judge, even at the stage of numbering, is seeking the parties to prove their case. There is no question of proof to be let in by the plaintiffs at the stage of numbering. Till the plaint is taken on file, the suit is only under the ministerial jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is only after the numbering of the plaint, does a Court decide judicially as to whether the plaintiffs have made out a case or not. To call upon a party to prove his case, even at the time of numbering, is to put the cart before the horse.
12.I am certain that the plaintiffs cannot let in evidence before a Sheristadar or a numbering Clerk and thereafter, repeat the very same
exercise before the learned Principal District Judge. The scope of enquiry at the time of numbering is limited as directed by this Court in Selvaraj and others vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited and others, 2021 3 LW 677.
13.I find it extremely curious that the learned Principal District Judge should call upon a party to let in evidence to show that the suit schedule mentioned property is not a water body.
14.It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit property is a patta land, to which they have title. The assertion is that, it is a patta land and the plaintiffs are not conceding the same is a water body. Proof of the positive can be demanded by the Court during the time of trial. To demand the non-existence of a position is not permissible, even after the parties engaged themselves in a full trial. The burden certainly is on the plaintiffs to prove that it is a patta land. It is not their case that it is a water body. It is the case of Kumbakonam City Municipal Corporation that it is a water body. Therefore, the burden would be on the said Corporation to prove that aspect. To call upon the plaintiffs to prove both their case as well as the case of the defendants puts the plaintiffs in an extremely unenviable
position.
15.In the light of the judgment referred to above, there shall be a direction to the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, to number the plaint presented by the Civil Revision Petitioners and thereafter, proceed in a manner permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act. 16.The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 17.03.2026 Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Note to Registry: The original of the plaint will be returned to Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar on obtaining the usual endorsement. cmr
To 1.The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.
2.The Tahsildar, Kumbakonam, Taluk Office, Dr.Moorthy Road, Kumbakonam Town.
3.The Sub Collector, Kumbakonam, Sub Collector's Office, Dr.Moorthy Road, Kumbakonam Taluk.
4.The Collector, Tamil Nadu Government Thanjavur, Collectorate, Trichy Main Road, Thanjavur.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
cmr 17.03.2026