Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1189 (MAD)

Radhakrishnan v. Natarajan and Others

2002-10-03

A.RAMAMURTHI

body2002
Judgment :- The 7th defendant in the suit is the appellant. 2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction relating to the suit property. The plaintiff is a cultivating tenant in respect of the properties and they belong to the idol of Koduthuvaithan Guruthotha Swamy Temple in Punjai Sangenthi Village, Lalgudi Taluk. The properties were taken over by the HR & CE Department and the 5th defendant was appointed as a Trustee of the temple. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as a lessee for two years and paying the rent regularly and there are no arrears. The plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 belong to Muthiriar caste and there is enmity between defendants 1 to 4 and the trustee the 5th defendant. Now, the defendants are threatening to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Hence the suit. The 4th defendant resisted the suit stating that defendants 1 to 4 are unnecessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff is not a lessee of the suit property, but the lands belong to the Temple. They are under the direct control and supervision of the HR & CE Board. They have leased out the suit first item on 16.06.1982 for three years to one Dorairaj through public auction. Items 2 to 4 were leased out to one Radhakrishnan on01.09.1978 for a period of eight years. They alone are in active possession and enjoyment of the property. The 5th defendant is the father of the plaintiff, who happened to be the trustee of the temple and the records have been created. The 5th defendant contended that he was the trustee of the temple. The plaintiff became the tenant of the properties and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as a cultivating tenant. The 7th defendant contended that the plaintiff is not the cultivating tenant of the properties. The suit property belongs to the temple. The plaintiff claims to be a trustee as well as a tenant. The suit properties were purchased by defendants 1 to 5 on behalf of the Idol and managed it jointly. There was difference of opinion between defendants 1 to 4 with the 5th defendant. Now, the 5th defendant with collusion of his son, the plaintiff, had created false receipts in his favour. The suit properties were purchased by defendants 1 to 5 on behalf of the Idol and managed it jointly. There was difference of opinion between defendants 1 to 4 with the 5th defendant. Now, the 5th defendant with collusion of his son, the plaintiff, had created false receipts in his favour. The 6th defendant is the lessee of item one of the property and now surrendered the land to the appropriate authorities and had gone to Kerala for his livelihood. The 7th defendant is a lessee of items 2 to 4 of the properties and he is in actual possession and is paying the rent to the temple. The trial court framed 5 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were marked. The trial court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.60 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Ariyalur and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of items 2 to 4. Aggrieved against this, the 7th defendant has come forward with the present second appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in decreeing the suit for bare injunction without giving a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit when the trial court has clearly found that the plaintiff has not proved that he was in possession on the date of the suit ? 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is admitted that the suit properties originally belonged to the Temple. These properties were purchased by defendants 1 to 5 in the name of the Temple and now, the administration has been taken over by HR & CE Department. The 5th defendant happened to be the father of the plaintiff was functioning as a Trustee of the temple. 5. It is admitted that the suit properties originally belonged to the Temple. These properties were purchased by defendants 1 to 5 in the name of the Temple and now, the administration has been taken over by HR & CE Department. The 5th defendant happened to be the father of the plaintiff was functioning as a Trustee of the temple. The plaintiff has filed the suit that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of items 2 to 4 of the properties and has been paying the lease paddy as per the Agreement and also obtained the receipts. There was misunderstanding between the 5th defendant and defendants 1 to 4 and because of this, they attempted to interfere in his possession and enjoyment and therefore, the suit was filed. Exs.A-1 to A-3 are the receipts given to the plaintiff relating to the measurement of paddy. It appears that the plaintiff moved the competent Tahsildar to record his name as a cultivating tenant. The Tahsildar had also passed an order under Ex.A-7 and the name of the plaintiff was registered as a cultivating tenant and subsequently, published in the Gazette as per Ex.A-8. 6. Per contra, the 7th defendant alone claims that he is a cultivating tenant of items 2 to 4 of the suit properties and he has been measuring the lease paddy and also produced Exs.B-1 to B-4. But admittedly, the name of the appellant / 7th defendant was not registered as a cultivating tenant in respect of these properties. 7. The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, whereas the lower appellate court reversed the finding and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of items 2 to 4. The learned counsel for the appellant / 7th defendant contended that a mere entry as a cultivating tenant in the Record of Tenancy Rights would not suffice to hold that the plaintiff is in possession and entitled to get a decree for injunction. D.W.4, who is the Executive Officer of the Temple clearly stated that he did not send any letter to the Tenancy Tahsildar as mentioned in Ex.A-6 and this evidence was rejected without any reason. The learned Appellate Judge without reversing the finding of the trial court erred in decreeing the suit solely on the basis of the entry in the Tenancy Record which is admittedly after suit. The learned Appellate Judge without reversing the finding of the trial court erred in decreeing the suit solely on the basis of the entry in the Tenancy Record which is admittedly after suit. The Appellate Court also failed to frame proper point for consideration. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Periathambi Gounder ..vs.. District Revenue Officer (1980 (II)MLJ 89), wherein it is stated as follows:- "A suit which has been instituted prior to the coming into force of Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1960 will have to run its natural and normal course prescribed by law without in any way being affected by the provisions contained in section 16-A of the Act, because there is nothing in section 16-A expressly or by necessary implication taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court validly and competently assumed at the first instance. Consequently even if a decree had not been passed in a suit at the time when section 16A came into force, the fact that section 16A came into force during the pendency of the suit will not prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction lawfully and validly invoked and the same principle will apply to the further course of the suit in the form of appeal or revision. Once the Record Officer on any other authority functioning under the Act has come to the conclusion that the land has been let for cultivation by tenant, the matters provided for in section 3(2) have to be determined by the Record Officer, or other authority functioning under the Act, and to that extent the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under section 16-A of the Act". 9. Section 16-A was introduced with effect from 27.11.1972 by section 5 of the Amending Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 1972 and Section 16-A reads as follows:- 16-A Bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts:- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the record officer, the District Collector or other officer or authority empowered by or under this Act has to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act". 10. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the aforesaid judgment contended that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to go into the question whether a person is a cultivating tenant or not. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that only if a suit was instituted prior to the introduction of Section 16-A, then only the said decision of the Full Bench is applicable. So far as this case is concerned, the suit was filed in the year 1984 and the name of the plaintiff was also recorded as a cultivating tenant as per Ex.A-7 on 19.07.1986. When once the competent authority had decided that a particular person is a cultivating tenant, then it is not open to the Civil Court to go into the question and as such, the Full Bench decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 11. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff relied on S.Balasubramanian ..vs.. Shamsu Thalreez (98 L.W.536 (Division Bench), wherein it is stated as follows: "When the authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act has decided the ultimate question under the Act within his jurisdiction and competency and which he is enjoined to decide in the proceedings under the Act, it is not open to the civil Court in a subsequent suit to sit in judgment over the same, as if is it an appellate authority and render a different decision. In the said circumstances the order passed by the authority under the Act will have to govern until and unless it is set aside by any process known to law". This decision is clearly applicable to the case on hand. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the temple authorities had stated that they have not sent a communication under Ex.A-6 to the Tenancy Tahsildar and as such, the entry as a cultivating tenant cannot be given much weight. When once the name of the plaintiff has been recorded as a cultivating tenant by a competent authority, the only course open to the aggrieved person is to move the officer concerned to cancel his name or prefer an appeal to the concerned authorities. The Civil Court cannot sit in judgment over a decision given by a competent authority. When once the name of the plaintiff has been recorded as a cultivating tenant by a competent authority, the only course open to the aggrieved person is to move the officer concerned to cancel his name or prefer an appeal to the concerned authorities. The Civil Court cannot sit in judgment over a decision given by a competent authority. In my view, the finding given by the competent authority cannot be questioned or re-opened by a Civil Court. The lower appellate court has correctly decided the legal position and in view of the bar under section 16-A, it is not open to the Civil Court to sit in judgment over the finding given by the Tenancy Tahsildar. The finding given by the lower appellate court is proper and correct and there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law for intervention. 13. For the reasons stated above, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.