JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to allow the second appeal and dismissing the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2017 made in A.S.Nno.166 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai Campus, Melur reversing the well considered judgment and decree dated 25.07.2014 made in O.S.No.97 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif, Melur.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif, Melur is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. The appellant / plaintiff filed O.S.No.97 of 2005 for declaring that the order passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, in R.C.K1/11505/2005-1, dated 26.02.2007 is null and void and also to declare the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 03.02.1996 in S.R.No.15/95 as valid and final and the defendants should obey the order. The suit is also to grant mandatory injunction to enter the plaintiff's name in all the revenue records regarding the suit property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. 3. Though the suit was originally filed with the prayer for mandatory injunction and directing the second respondent to enter the plaintiff's name in all the revenue records regarding the suit property and for permanent injunction, the plaint was later on amended in year 2010 by an order of Court to include the above two declaratory relief’s. The suit property is an extent of 4.30 acres in Survey No.3/1 in Aathikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk. 4. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows: (i) The suit property originally belongs to the plaintiff, who is the sole owner having absolute right over the suit property for the past more than 50 years. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff was granted patta in her favour on 03.02.1996 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai. After conducting proper enquiry, Ryotwari patta was given to the plaintiff. Even before the Ryotwri patta was given to the plaintiff, the suit property was cultivated by the plaintiff. The adjacent lands of the suit properties were classified as poramboke, but enjoyed by others and they were given patta and chitta. After conducting proper enquiry, Ryotwari patta was given to the plaintiff. Even before the Ryotwri patta was given to the plaintiff, the suit property was cultivated by the plaintiff. The adjacent lands of the suit properties were classified as poramboke, but enjoyed by others and they were given patta and chitta. In the old revenue records, the suit properties were never classified by the Government as 'Kanmai', but recently the suit properties were alone mistakenly entered as 'Kanmai' in the revenue records. The mistake in the entry of the classification regarding suit property was also rectified by the Assistant Settlement Officer on the basis of the enquiry and on perusal of documents. (ii) The Village Administrative Officer admitted before the Assistant Settlement Officer that the suit properties are classified as 'Purampugal' in the revenue records. After the patta was issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the second defendant did not obey the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and refused to enter the plaintiff's name in chitta, adangal and other revenue records. The order of Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 03.02.1996 is a final order and no order can be passed by the revenue officials, contrary to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer passed in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (XXVI of 1948). Even though other adjacent land owners of the suit properties in S.No.3/1 of Athikulam Village were granted patta and their names were also included in the revenue records, the plaintiff alone was denied the said benefit by the second defendant. (iii) The plaintiff would further aver that she understood that the defendants may try to dispossess her from the suit property in the near future and they may disturb her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, she filed the present suit. (iv) The defendants in the suit are the State represented through the District Collector, Madurai and the Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk and the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai. 5. A detailed written statement was filed by the defendants and an additional written statement was also filed by the second defendant. In the written statement, the defendants 1 and 2 denied the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint. 5. A detailed written statement was filed by the defendants and an additional written statement was also filed by the second defendant. In the written statement, the defendants 1 and 2 denied the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants that the suit property is a Kanmai Poromboke for which, patta can never be issued to any one. Though it is stated that S.No.3/1 measuring an extent of 5.01.5 hectares of land in Aathikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, was classified as Kanmai Poramboke, it is admitted by the defendants that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, has granted patta to the plaintiff to an extent of 4.30 acres in S.No. 3/1 in Aathikulam Village not under Act 26 of 1948 but outside the scope of Estate Abolition Act. 6. It is further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat at Madras, to issue patta and that in the said writ petition, a direction was issued to the Thasildar, Madurai North, to consider the petitioner's representation. The Thasildar, Madurai North, rejected the petition for patta as the property is classified as Kanmai Poramboke. It is further contended that a detailed report was sent to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, from the Thasildar, Madurai North Taluk, to cancel the patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer to the plaintiff. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai also has sent a detailed report to the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Land Records, Chennai, to cancel the patta given by the Assistant Settlement Officer to the plaintiff. 7. It is further stated that the plaintiff filed a writ appeal before this Court against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Madurai North. It is further stated that the Principal Seat at Madras, dismissed the said appeal and gave a direction to approach the Civil Court on or before 18.11.2004. Since the land in S.No.3/1 is classified as Kanmai Poramboke, the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Land Records, Chennai, has been specially addressed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, to cancel the patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, in favour of the plaintiff. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is not in enjoyment of the suit property. 8. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is not in enjoyment of the suit property. 8. It is the further case of the defendants that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, has wrongly granted patta Outside the Scope of Estate Abolition Act during 1996 despite the fact that the land in S.No.3/1 is classified as Kanmai Poramboke. It was contended that the plaintiff and another person namely, Pankajam obtained patta from the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, on false information and therefore, the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Land Records, Chennai was requested to cancel the patta and restore the land to original position. 9. It is the case of the defendants that even before the U.D.R. survey, the suit property was classified as Kanmai Poramboke and that the plaintiff was never in enjoyment of the same. After filing the written statement, the third defendant in the suit namely, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, has passed an order cancelling the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, granting Ryotwari patta to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaint was amended to seek further relief of declarations as cited supra. 10. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and produced the documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. The defendant examined as D.W.1 and marked the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6. Before the trial Court, it was the contention of the plaintiff that the third defendant in the suit has passed an order cancelling the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, granting Ryotwari patta to the plaintiff in a suo motu proceedings dated 26.02.2007 and the order of the third defendant without filing an appeal within the period of limitation cannot be sustained. 11. Since the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, was cancelled after 11 years, the trial Court found that the order passed by the third defendant against the plaintiff without taking any action against the other person by name, Pankajam, whose patta was also in respect of Kanmai Poramboke is not fair. Relying upon the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, wherein, it is stated that during settlement, the suit property has been classified as Aathikulam Kanmai, the plaintiff contended that the defendants have not produced the settlement register or other documents prior to 1996 to justify the action of the third defendant, cancelling the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai. Relying upon the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, wherein, it is stated that during settlement, the suit property has been classified as Aathikulam Kanmai, the plaintiff contended that the defendants have not produced the settlement register or other documents prior to 1996 to justify the action of the third defendant, cancelling the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai. Since the document on the basis of which order was passed by the third defendant was not produced before the trial Court and the third defendant was also absent and set ex parte, the trial Court held that the defendants have not proved their case. Though the trial Court has accepted the position that under Section 14(A) of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, patta cannot be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani, the trial Court found that the defendants had not proved by any document that the suit property is a water body maintained for irrigating agricultural lands. 12. The trial Court further held that the order passed by the third defendant on 26.02.2007 is invalid and the same was passed without giving proper opportunity to the plaintiff. Since the order passed by the third defendant after the filing of the suit, the trial Court also accepted the case of the plaintiff that the defendants without filing any statutory appeal as against the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, have referred the matter to the third defendant and had obtained an order, cancelling the order of Assistant Settlement Officer exercising his suo motu power, without proper documents. As a result, the trial Court decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the defendants have not produced sufficient documents to prove on what basis, the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, was set aside. Since the suit was decreed as prayed for, the defendants in the suit filed an appeal in A.S.No.166 of 2014 before the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, (Camp at Melur). The lower appellate Court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif, Melur. 13. Since the suit was decreed as prayed for, the defendants in the suit filed an appeal in A.S.No.166 of 2014 before the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, (Camp at Melur). The lower appellate Court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif, Melur. 13. The lower appellate Court after finding that the whole claim of plaintiff is based on the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, and Ex.A.1 dated 03.02.1996, accepted the case of defendants that the suit property has been classified as Kanmai Poramboke even before patta was granted in favour of plaintiff. The Court further found that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, has passed an order on 03.02.1996 as per Ex.A.1 and upon the said order, Ryotwari patta also had been issued as per Ex.A2 on the same day. Based on the order, the Adangal extract under Ex.A.3, could be produced by the plaintiff. 14. After referring to the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, under Ex.A.1, the lower appellate Court found that the classification of the land as Aathikulam Kanmai has been converted as Ryotwari land in favour of plaintiff only by the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai under Ex.A.1. Hence, the lower appellate Court has held that the suit property is a water body as per classification, which was done long back prior to the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai. Since the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, cannot grant Ryotwari Patta in respect of water body, the lower appellate Court held that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai cannot correct the revenue records with regard to the classification and further held that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, has wrongly passed an order and issued patta in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. 15. Having regard to the report of the District Revenue Officer addressed to the third defendant, the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff has obtained Ryotwari patta from the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, by false representation and that the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, has been rightly cancelled by the third defendant. 16. Since the classification of the land is held to be Kanmai Poramboke as contended by the defendants, the lower appellate Court held that the land vest with State Government. 16. Since the classification of the land is held to be Kanmai Poramboke as contended by the defendants, the lower appellate Court held that the land vest with State Government. Since patta has been obtained in a fraudulent manner by an official, it was further contended that the third defendant is entitled to cancel the said patta and it is imperative on the part of the State to set right the wrong in accordance with law. 17. The lower appellate Court is of the view that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, indulged in fraud by issuing Ryotwari patta in favour of the plaintiff by suppressing the classification of the said land in the revenue records namely, Kanmai Poramboke, for which, no Ryotwari patta can be granted to any one. Since the plaintiff had not produced any document to prove the title or enjoyment independently, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the above second appeal. In the memorandum of grounds, the following substantial questions of law has been raised by the appellant. 1. Whether the first appellate court is right in holding that Ex.A1 is tainted with fraud without any reason overcome the reasoning fo the lower Court, when the prescribed authority, after evaluating the documents for the long cultivation of the appellant in Kanmoi poramboke, granted ryotwari patta in favour of her? 2. Whether the first appellate court is wrong in holding that Ex.A1 is fraudulent one, when it is not the case of the respondent but contended that the second respondent has no power to grant patta for the kanmoi to the appellant under Ex.A1? 3. Whether order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the third respondent, cancelling the order of the second respondent is hit by violation of principle of natural justice, as without giving opportunity to the affected parties in the order? 4. Whether the third respondent has the power to cancel the settlement patta, under Section 7(c) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 that too after the period of 11 years, when the Act itself prescribes one year for the government to prefer the appeal, under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and hence, his order dated 26.02.2007 is invalid? 5. 5. Whether order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the third respondent, cancelling the order of the second respondent is a counter blast to the suit filed by the appellant? 6. Whether order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the third respondent, cancelling the order of the second respondent during the pendency of the suit is sustainable in law? 7. Whether the finding of the first appellate court not on the basis of the evidence available before him but solely relied on the grounds of the appellant without determining the points for consideration and hence not satisfied Order 41, Rule 31 CPC? 18. Before dealing with the questions of law raised by the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. As it is not in dispute, in this case, that the suit property was taken over by the Government under the said Act. Section 3(b) reads as follows: “3. With effect on and from the notified date and Consequences save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act.- (b) the entire estate (including all communal lands; porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands; lanka lands; forests; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; tanks and ooranies (including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works; fisheries and ferries, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances and the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Cess Act, 1865, and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate;” 19. By the Ryotwari Settlement in respect of estates, the intention of the legislature was to acquire the rights of the landholders and to introduce the ryotwari settlement. The Act certainly protect the pre-existing right of ryots. A special machinery is provided under the Act to decide the nature and character of the lands for the purpose of issuing ryotwari patta. 20. All lands which are not non-ryoti lands and water bodies vest with the Government free of all encumbrances. As per Section 11 of the Act, only a ryot is entitled to get patta in respect of a ryotwari land and ryotwari patta cannot be issued in respect of a tank or water body. 20. All lands which are not non-ryoti lands and water bodies vest with the Government free of all encumbrances. As per Section 11 of the Act, only a ryot is entitled to get patta in respect of a ryotwari land and ryotwari patta cannot be issued in respect of a tank or water body. Though the right of ryot to get ryotwari patta under the Act is a right created under the said statute and a machinery is also provided under the Act to get ryotwari patta, when there is a dispute either as to the character of an estate where it is a ryotwari land or not or as to the title of a person, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramalinga Madam case (AIR 1986 SC) and a Full Bench of this Court that a civil court is competent to independently decide the question of title as the finality under Section 64(c) of the Act is only for the purpose of the Act. By the Act, it is true that a ryotwari land does not vest with the Government and title and possession of a ryot is fully protected. 21. In the present case, the vital issue is whether the suit property is a ryotwari land or Kanmoi poramboke. At least from the date of settlement, the entire extent of 5.62.5 Hencatres of land in Survey No.3/1 in Aathikulam Village was classified as Kanmoi Poramboke. The possession and enjoyment of the appellant was also disputed by the respondents. However, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, passed an order on 03.02.1996 granting ryotwari patta in favour of the appellant. It is only on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in favour of the appellant, the appellant has filed a suit on the ground that the property was wrongly classified as Kanmoi in revenue records recently and that the Assistant Settlement Officer had rectified the mistake in the classification by granting ryotwari patta in favour of the appellant. It is stated that the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Land Records cancelled the ryotwari patta in favour of the appellant as the Special Commissioner after going through the entire records and the reports of the revenue officials found that the land was classified as Kanmoi poramboke and that no patta can be granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer. 22. 22. It is not the case of the appellant that the land was classified as a ryotwari land or patta land in respect of which ryotwari patta can be granted. It is only by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the classification of the land was changed. In the entire plaint, there is no reference about the source of title for the appellant. Except stating that the suit property belong to the plaintiff and he is the sole owner having absolute right over the suit property for the past more than 50 years, there is no document produced before the trial Court to show that the appellant was enjoying the land even before the order was passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Ex.A1 dated 03.02.1996. The appellant filed the suit only on the basis of the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of the plaintiff. Though the appellant has filed Ex.A1 to A12 no document is produced before the trial Court to show the plaintiff's possession or title. No document was also produced to show that the classification of the land exists as ryotwari punja any time prior to the settlement or after settlement pursuant to Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The rights of the appellant has to be decided only on the basis of the issues raised and the facts admitted. 23. In the present case, it is not the case of the appellant that he had filed any petition to claim ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the Act. Since the land was not even classified as a ryoti land, the property was not treated as a property to which there can be any enquiry to grant patta. Only a land which was properly included or ought to have been included in the holding of a person is entitled to ryotwari patta under the Act. Since the land was classified as a Kanmoi proamboke (water body), there was no question of granting ryotwari patta in favour of the appellant during settlement. Under Rule 9 of rules framed in 1965 under the Act, every application for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of any land under Sections 9, 10, 11 or 14 shall be in Form IV and it should be presented either in person or sent to the Settlement Officer within six months from the notified date. Under Rule 9 of rules framed in 1965 under the Act, every application for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of any land under Sections 9, 10, 11 or 14 shall be in Form IV and it should be presented either in person or sent to the Settlement Officer within six months from the notified date. A person whose application is rejected can file an appeal to the Tribunal. In the present case, the fact that the appellant was not granted ryotwari patta during settlement is admitted. However, the appellant filed an application for grant of ryotwari patta outside the purview of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer who is deciding an application for grant of ryotwari patta outside the purview of the Act has no power to reclassify the land or to change the classification by no means. In the present case, except the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, no authenticated document is produced by the appellant to show that the land was a ryotwari land in respect of which the person in possession of the land as ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta. Except relying upon the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer reclassifying the land as ryotwari land absolutely no document or material is produced before the Court to substantiate the contention of the appellant that the land was classified as a ryotwari land at the time when it was taken over under the Act 26 of 1948. It is true that even in a case where a person was not granted ryotwari patta, he can file a civil suit to establish his title. However, in the present case, the suit is filed not for declaration of the appellant's title but for setting aside the order of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration exercising suo motu power. 24. The questions of law raised by the appellant has to be examined only in the above back groud. The first question of law is framed by admitting that the suit property is a Kanmoi poramboke and it is indicated that the appellant by virtue of his long cultivation is entitled to ryotwari patta. It is well settled that no ryotwari patta can be granted in respect of land which was classified as a tank or kanmoi or kanmoi poramboke, etc. It is well settled that no ryotwari patta can be granted in respect of land which was classified as a tank or kanmoi or kanmoi poramboke, etc. Hence, first substantial question of law has no merits and the appellant's admission by framing this question of law would also support the case of the respondent State. 25. In the present case, it is admitted that it is the specific contention of the respondent that the second respondent has no power to grant patta for the kanmoi under Ex.A1. Under the Act, all communal land, tanks and oorunies, including private tanks, Oorunies vest with Government free of all encumbrances and no one is entitled to get ryotwari patta for the land. If patta is granted by the second respondent/Assistant Settlement Officer in respect of a property which is classified as Kanmoi promboke or tank, the order is not mere mistake but without jurisdiction and fraudulent. Hence, the contention of the appellant on the basis of Ex.A1 has no substance and therefore, the second question of law is answered against the appellant. 26. The third and fourth questions of law are framed as if the second respondent has passed a lawful order by granting ryotwari patta. Any person claiming ryotwari patta under Act, XXVI of 1948 can make an application within prescribed period. He has an appeal remedy and to file an appeal even if his application is dismissed. In the present case, without making a claim during settlement, the appellant has filed a petition for grant of ryotwari patta outside the purview of the Act. Now, an order has been passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in 1996 ignoring the fact that the land has been classified as Kanmoi poramboke and that no ryotwari patta can be granted in favour of the appellant. The fact that the land was classified as Kanmoi poramboke during settlement and the said classification continued even at the time of UDR is not in dispute. Absolutely, there is no record to show that the appellant was enjoying the property as a ryot or that the land was under the cultivation of the appellant during settlement. The fact that the land was classified as Kanmoi poramboke during settlement and the said classification continued even at the time of UDR is not in dispute. Absolutely, there is no record to show that the appellant was enjoying the property as a ryot or that the land was under the cultivation of the appellant during settlement. As stated earlier, though the appellant is entitled to establish his title by approaching the Civil Court, the appellant has chosen to approach the Assistant Settlement Officer probably the appellant realised that he cannot establish the character of the land as well as his title and enjoyment before the Civil Court independently. Hence, he approached the second respondent Assistant Settlement Officer and got an order in his favour surreptitiously. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Assistant Settlement Officer has passed an order by reclassifying the land to favour the appellant. The appellant cannot file a suit to get a declaration on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and hence, the suit itself is not maintainable. During the pendency of the suit, the third respondent has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the validity of the order passed by the third respondent is also raised as an issue. However, when a mistaken or fraudulent order is brought to the notice of the Commissioner, he can take corrective measure and for that there is no time limit. In the present case, the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer was not noticed till he applied for grant of revenue patta on the basis of the order. The revenue officials did not oblige the appellant as no patta can be granted in respect of a land which is classified as Kanmoi poramboke. It was in these circumstances, the revenue officials seems to have approached the third respondent and appraised the facts and records. It is only on the basis of the classification of land, at the time of settlement and authenticated records of the revenue, the Commissioner of Land Administration has set aside the order. This was also challenged in the pending suit by filing an amendment. This is not a case where the suit has been filed for declaration of title. A suit can be filed to nullify the legal implications of an order passed by the authority. This was also challenged in the pending suit by filing an amendment. This is not a case where the suit has been filed for declaration of title. A suit can be filed to nullify the legal implications of an order passed by the authority. Here the suit itself is filed to ratify the order of Assistant Settlement Officer and to set aside the order passed by the revisional authority, which is not permissible. Further, it has been held by this Court in the case of M. Govindan v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, reported in 2011 3 LW 922 that the Commissioner can pass orders when an irregular order is passed by mistake or by playing fraud. 27. The lower appellate Court has considered the relevant facts which are not in dispute. The issue raised and argued on either side have been considered and the appellate Court has consciously allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court which cannot be sustained on the admitted facts. 28. For all the above reasons, the questions of law raised by the appellant are answered against the appellant. As a result, the Second Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.166 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, camp at Melur is confirmed and the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, stands dismissed. No costs.