Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 570 (MAD)

Chinnathambi v. Panchalai

2006-03-01

M.JAICHANDREN

body2006
Judgment :- (The Civil Revision Petition is against the order, dated 7.8.2000, made in O.S.No.160 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur.) This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 7.8.2000, made in O.S.No.160 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a cultivating tenant of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.160 of 1999. He had entered into lease agreements with the owner of the property, on 1.3.1992 and 3.2.1996. The plaintiff is the owner's wife and resident of Chennai. After the death of the owner, the aforesaid suit was filed on the basis of the false allegations that she was in possession. She had filed the suit in O.S.No.160 of 1999 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with her possession of the property and had also filed an interim application in I.A.No.168 of 1999 for an order of interim injunction. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was in possession as the Revenue Officer, on 26.6.2000, had declared that the petitioner was a cultivating tenant in the suit schedule property. He had filed I.A.No.193 of 1999 for an interim injunction restraining the respondent/plaintiff from interfering in his possession of the property. 3. The petitioner had submitted the judgment of this Court reported in 1958 (I) M.L.J. 505 (Aravan Servai V Kamugan Servai) wherein it has been held thus: "if there are pending proceedings in a civil Court where a prima facie decision has been given that the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant does not exist and the opposite party rushes to the Revenue Court in order to obtain a decision to the contrary, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall not proceed with the matter but should await the decision of the Civil Court. The moment the civil Court finds that the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant exists it should transfer the proceedings. The moment it is found that such a relationship does not exist the Revenue Divisional Officer must respect the finding of the civil Court and dismiss the application before himself. The moment the civil Court finds that the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant exists it should transfer the proceedings. The moment it is found that such a relationship does not exist the Revenue Divisional Officer must respect the finding of the civil Court and dismiss the application before himself. In the same way, if there are pending proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the opposite party runs to the civil Court, the civil Court should await the decision whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists and, if the answer is in the affirmative and the remedy asked for before it are those which can be granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer the civil Court will not proceed with the suit. On the other hand if the Revenue Divisional Officer finds that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist or that the reliefs asked for before him are not those which can be granted by him it will be open to the civil Court to proceed." On a perusal of the above said judgment, I find that the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur, had failed to consider the fact that the suit was filed, before the lower Court, for a permanent injunction against the petitioner herein while the application before the Revenue Divisional Officer was with regard to declaration that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant and when the same has been declared by virtue of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Civil Court is barred by jurisdiction to deal with the above matter. However, by an order, dated 7.8.2000, the learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur, had passed an order stating that he has the jurisdiction to try the suit and there is no bar either under Section 6-A of the Cultivating Tenant Protection Act 1955, or under Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969. Against the said order the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. Against the said order the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil Court has been barred under Section 6-A of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955, as well as under Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969, and only the Revenue Authorities can decide the status of the tenant. If any person is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Authorities, an appeal or revision will be the appropriate remedy under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu agricultural lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that only after initiation of the suit the petitioner/tenant has gone before the Revenue Authorities and that the civil Court has the jurisdiction to proceed with the suit in O.S.No.160 of 1999 since it is only for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/tenant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision a Division Bench of this Court in Balasubramanian S. Vs. Shamsu Thalreez (98 L.W. 536) to show that once the Revenue Authorities have decided on the status of the cultivating tenant, the question cannot be re-agitated subsequently in a civil suit. In that decision it has been held thus: "3. Where an authority is constituted under an Act of legislature, conferring on him jurisdiction, for the purpose of determining questions arising under it and if that authority has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him and has rendered his determination, and furthermore as against the said determination, the machinery for further agitation has also been delineated in the Act itself, then the general remedy of suit before a civil court will be barred. This is more so when the provisions of the Act say that the determination of the ultimate authority under it is final. There are exceptions to the above rule, such as where orders have been obtained by fraud, collusion, etc. As stated above, we are not facing any such plea put forth by the plaintiff." 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court, dated 3.10.2002, in Second Appeal No.316 of 1991, wherein it was held as follows: "10. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the aforesaid judgment (referring to Periathambi Gounder Vs. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court, dated 3.10.2002, in Second Appeal No.316 of 1991, wherein it was held as follows: "10. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the aforesaid judgment (referring to Periathambi Gounder Vs. District Revenue Officer 1980 II MLJ 89) 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 19.7.1986. 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." 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relies on the judgment in K.S. Palaniswamy v. Ramaswami Gounder (1977 (1) M.L.J.- N.R.C.5) held as follows: "Though section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1969 excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Court to determine a question which the authorities constituted under that Act had to decide, the present suit, which is one for mere injunction, can be maintained in the civil Court. It is true for the purpose of granting the relief of injunction claimed in the suit, the Court has to incidentally go into the question as to who is in possession of the property and in what capacity. The fact that the Court has to consider an incidental question for the purpose of granting the main relief claimed in the suit will not make the suit incompetent in a civil Court." 10. The fact that the Court has to consider an incidental question for the purpose of granting the main relief claimed in the suit will not make the suit incompetent in a civil Court." 10. Analysing the arguments putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the case laws cited and the records produced before this Court, this Court is of the view that it would suffice to state that the findings of the learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur, with regard to the status of the tenant in the suit, as a tenant or otherwise, is declared to be unnecessary and not relevant to the main prayer in the suit. Accordingly, the order, dated 7.8.2000, passed in O.S.No.160 of 1999, with regard to the status of the tenancy is to that extent set aside and the trial Court is directed to hear the suit in O.S.No.160 of 1999 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with the law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.1881 of 2000 is closed.