JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) has preferred the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 18 of 2000 dated 28.7.2000 passed by the learned Principle Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in affirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 153 of 1999 dated 14.1.2000 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam. 2. During the pendency of the Second Appeal before this Court, the appellant/plaintiff has expired and the Appellants 2 to 6 have been brought on record as legal representatives of the appellant/plaintiff as per the order passed in C.M.P. No. 13275 of 2004, dated 18.8.2005. 3. The 1st Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principle Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, while passing the judgment in A.S. No. 18 of 2000 on 28.7.2000 has observed that as per Section 23 of the Kudiyiruppu Act, the lawful orders passed therein cannot be interfered with by the Civil Courts, which have no jurisdiction and consequently, negatived the relief of injunction and dismissed the Appeal without costs, thereby, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 4. The trial Court, while passing the judgment in O.S. No. 153 of 1999 on 14.1.2000 has opined that the relief prayed for by the plaintiff is not proper and the appellant/plaintiff has given a confusing detail of property and is making an endeavour to prevent the pending proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and also, preventing the respondent/defendant from selling and that there is no bona fide intention on the part of the appellant/plaintiff and consequently, held that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for in the plaint and dismissed the Suit, without costs. 5. Earlier, before the trial Court, in the main Suit, 1 to 3 issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 have been examined and Exhibits A-1 to A-17 have been marked. On the side of the respondent/defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exhibits B-1 to B-9 have been marked and also Exhibit C-1-Commissioner‘s Report dated 15.10.1999 and Exhibit C-2-Commissioner‘s Plan have been marked. 6. At the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of Law: 1. On the side of the respondent/defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exhibits B-1 to B-9 have been marked and also Exhibit C-1-Commissioner‘s Report dated 15.10.1999 and Exhibit C-2-Commissioner‘s Plan have been marked. 6. At the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of Law: 1. Whether the lower Appellate Court not erred in law in holding that the suit is barred under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu Act (Act 40 of 1971) when no notice was issued to the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest before granting patta to defendant‘s predecessor? 2. Whether the patta issued in favour of Defendant‘s predecessor under Exhibit B-1 is binding on the plaintiff when plaintiff had no notice in the proceedings initiated under Act 40 of 1971? 7. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on substantial questions of law 1 and 2: The Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the Courts below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. 8. It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the 1st Appellate Court failed to appreciate that any patta granted under Kudiyiruppu Act is not binding on the appellant/plaintiff or his predecessor in title. 9. The Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff urges before this Court that the 1st Appellate Court has failed to notice that Kudiyiruppu Act is not conclusive document of title and notwithstanding the Kudiyiruppu patta granted to the defendant‘s predecessor in interest, the appellant/plaintiff can maintain a Suit for permanent injunction. Yet, another submission made on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff is that the Suit property is not included in Exhibit A-16 Will and the reasons assigned by the 1st Appellate Court are erroneous in law. 10. The Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff projects a plea that the respondent/defendant claimed only 5 cents in the Suit survey number and as such, the dismissal of the Suit in toto is not sustainable in law. 11. It is the submission of the Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the appellant/plaintiff has already approached the Authorities under the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971 to cancel the patta issued in favour of the respondent/defendant‘s predecessor in title and as such, the title of the appellant/plaintiff cannot be disputed. 12. 11. It is the submission of the Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the appellant/plaintiff has already approached the Authorities under the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971 to cancel the patta issued in favour of the respondent/defendant‘s predecessor in title and as such, the title of the appellant/plaintiff cannot be disputed. 12. Lastly, the Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff draws the attention of this Court that the suit property has been mentioned as cattle shed site in Exhibit A-16 Will and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff alone is. entitled to the suit property when particularly, the respondent/defendant has not disputed Exhibit A-16 Will dated 1.4.1959. 13. The appellant/plaintiff in the plaint has averred that in respect of the suit property, the appellant/plaintiff on 7.7.1999 has executed a Power Deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff‘s son-in-law Venugopal and as such, the said Power Agent has filed the present suit and that the respondent/defendant is the appellant/plaintiff‘s eldest sister Kunjammal‘s grandson and on 1.4.1959, the appellant/plaintiff‘s father Srinivasam Pillai has executed a registered Will to and in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, his sister Kunjammal and his adopted son Kuppusamy. After the demise of the Srinivasam Pillai, during the year 1965, the appellant/plaintiff has obtained a suit property among other properties as per the Will. Kunjammal has expired during 1994. Kunjammal has resided in the suit property based on the permission granted by the appellant/plaintiff. After the death of Kunjammal, the appellant/ plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the suit property and also in possession of the same till date. The dilapidated useless thatch house in suit property has been demolished and thereafter, in the suit land, country karuvai trees have grown. 14. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the respondent/defendant has no right of residence in the suit property and the respondent/defendant is residing in town station and without the knowledge of the appellant/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant has obtained a patta in appellant/plaintiffs sister‘s name Kunjammal and on 24.6.1999, before the Nagapattinam Revenue Divisional Officer, for cancellation of patta, a petition has been given, in which the respondent/defendant has been required to appear for hearing on 5.7.1999. Till final orders are passed by the Nagapattinam Revenue Divisional Officer in connection with the petition submitted for the cancellation of the patta, the respondent/defendant cannot sell the suit property to a third person or to encumber the same and as such, for restraining the respondent/defendant through a permanent injunction, the present suit has been filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant. 15. In the written statement, the respondent/defendant has stated that the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property at any point of time and the appellant/plaintiff can only ask for a declaration that the patta issued by the Government in favour of the grandmother of the respondent/plaintiff is wrong and it is wrong to state that the suit property is a cattle shed and it is true that on 1.4.1959 Srinivasam Pillai has executed a Will and it is also wrong to state that till date the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. 16. Furthermore, in the suit property, the respondent/defendant‘s grandmother Kunjammal has constructed a house and resided therein and the cattle shed, because of dilapidated condition, has got demolished and after the death of the said Kunjammal, the respondent/defendant is living in a portion of the property. 17. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that both the Courts have taken note of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction. Moreover, it is clearly held by the trial Court that the property detail mentioned in the petition to cancel the patta and the property detail in respect of the suit property do not tally and it has been given in a confused state and there are lot of discrepancies in regard to the suit property detail as well as the property details in the petition for cancellation of patta and consequently, both the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court have concurrently held that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction and dismissed the Suit and the Appeal, which do not require any interference in the hands of this Court, sitting in Second Appeal, at this distance point of time. 18. 18. The appellant/plaintiff cements his case of claiming relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant based on Exhibit A-16 Will dated 1.4.1959 executed by Srinivasam Pillai to and in favour of the plaintiff. A bare perusal of Exhibit A-16 Will dated 1.4.1959 shows that although in the extent and nature of properties have been made mention of in the said document, yet, there is no schedule concerning the plaint schedule property, about which, we are concerned, in the Second Appeal. 19. As a matter of fact, Exhibit A-16 Will dated 1.4.1959 refers to one Sankaran signing as a witness and the Will being written and attested by a person etc. Surprisingly, the said Will does not refer to the plaint schedule property and in this regard, the schedule of Exhibit A-16 relating to the suit property is conspicuously absent. It is true that the appellant/plaintiff has m projected a petition for cancellation of patta before Revenue Divisional Officer and the same being taken on 5.7.1999. Both the Courts have observed that even in the petition praying for cancellation of patta in the plaint schedule property, no details of property have been furnished. 20. In the instant case on hand, the appellant/plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant. On going through the judgment of the trial Court in O.S. No. 153 of 1999, it is candidly evident that it has rested its conclusion, while dismissing the main Suit, that there is no bona fide intention on the part of the appellant/plaintiff for instituting the Suit and he has only instituted the Suit to create confusion in regard to the property detail being mentioned in the petition for cancellation of patta and the property detail being made mention of in the suit property, which do not tally each other and has held that the relief of injunction prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff is not proper. However, the 1st Appellate Court has held that as per Section 23 of the Kudiyiruppu Act, in regard to the orders being passed by the Revenue Divisional Authorities, Civil Courts cannot interfere and viewed in that perspective, it has dismissed the Appeal. 21. At this stage, it is not out of place for this Court to make a significant reference to Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Confinement of Ownership) Act, 1971, which enjoins as follows: “23. 21. At this stage, it is not out of place for this Court to make a significant reference to Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Confinement of Ownership) Act, 1971, which enjoins as follows: “23. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Government are, or the, authorised officer is, empowered by or under this Act, to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance power conferred by or under this Act.” 22. Section 18 of the Act speaks of Service of notice and orders, which is extracted hereunder: “18. Service of notices and orders.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of this Section and of any rules made in this behalf, every notice issued or order made under this Act shall- (a)in the case of any notice or order of a general nature or affecting a class of persons, be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. (b)in the case of any notice or order affecting an individual, corporation or firm, be served in the manner provided for the service of summons in Rule 2 of Order 29 or Rule 3 of Order 30 , as the case may be, in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908); and (c)in the case of any notice or order affecting an individual person (not being a corporation or firm), be served on such person- (i)by delivering or tendering it to that person; or (ii)if it cannot be so delivered or tendered, by delivering or tendering it to the head of the office in which such person, is employed, or to any adult male servant of such person, or to any adult male member of the family of such person or by affixing a copy thereof on the outer door or on some conspicuous part of the premises in which that person is known to have last resided or carried on business, or personally worked for Sain; or (iii)failing service by any of the means aforesaid, by post or by affixing a copy of the said notice or order on some conspicuous part of the kudiyiruppu or superstructure to which it relates. (2)Where the notice or order cannot be served without undue delay, due to any dispute in the ownership of the Kudiyiruppu or the superstructure or due to the person to whom the notice or order is intended being not readily traceable, the notice or order may be served by publishing it in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and where possible, by affixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of the Kudiyiruppu or superstructure to which it relates.” 23. The Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the suit for injunction is maintainable before a Civil Court and to lend support to his contention, he relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 912 of 1987 dated 12.3.2001 between Kasinatha Asari v. 1 .Vaithilinga Mudaliar (died), 2. Shanbagavalli, 3. Ranganathan, A. Ayyappan, wherein in paragraph-13, it is held hereunder: “13. As we find that the Civil Court has got a jurisdiction to decide the incidental questions, the Question that has been referred to in this case need not be gone into and it can be decided on a better occasion. Shanbagavalli, 3. Ranganathan, A. Ayyappan, wherein in paragraph-13, it is held hereunder: “13. As we find that the Civil Court has got a jurisdiction to decide the incidental questions, the Question that has been referred to in this case need not be gone into and it can be decided on a better occasion. Further, the defendant, who is not a Rural Artisan and not being an occupant of “Kudiyiruppu” even the jurisdictional question will not arise at all and the Civil Court could decide the merits of the claim of the defendant/appellant.” 24. Apart from the aforesaid decision, this Court points out the decision in 1. V. Dharmaraj (died), 2. Kamalambal, 3. D. Mariappan, 4. D. Muthulakshmi, S.D. Rajakumar, 6. D. Anadan v. 1. Jaffar Sadia 2. Umar Farook 2011 (1) MWN (Civil) 332 : (2011) 3 MLJ 277 , wherein it is held that ‘in order to invoke provisions of Kudiyiruppu Act, there must a land belonging to Landlord to be enjoyed by any person as a Tenant on payment of rent and such a person must cultivate agricultural land of that person and then only such person can claim site of any dwelling house or hut occupied by him in very same agricultural land as Kudiyiruppu and that the defendant is not entitled to invoke provisions of Kudiyiruppu Act and that the Suit is legally maintainable.” 25. In the present case on hand, the suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff is per se maintainable against the respondent/defendant, as opined by this Court. Unfortunately, the appellant/plaintiff, though has relied mainly on Exhibit A-16 Will dated 1.4.1959 and the same has been admitted by the respondent/defendant in the written statement, yet, the appellant/plaintiff has not identified the suit property in the Will, because of the obvious reason that there is no schedule of property being mentioned relating to the suit property in particular, about which we are concerned with. In the present case on hand, when the appellant/plaintiff has not identified the suit property in Exhibit A-16 Will dated 1.4.1959 and all the more when the schedule of Exhibit A-16 Will is conspicuously absent in regard to the suit property, placing reliance on the said Will and claiming the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant is an otiose one, in the considered opinion of this Court. Accordingly, this Court holds that the appellant/plaintiff has not established or identified the suit property as per Exhibit A-16 Will dated 1.4.1959 and as such, this Court holds that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. Since, the appellant/plaintiff has not identified the suit property and further, he is not entitled to the relief of injunction, this Court, on that simple ground alone, dismisses the Second Appeal. Viewed in that perspective, the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 are left unanswered. 26. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in A.S. No. 18 of 2000 dated 28.7.2000 and the judgment and decree made of the trial Court viz., the Learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam in O.S. No. 153 of 1999 dated 14.1.2000 are affirmed by this Court for the reasons ascribed in this Second Appeal. No costs.