JUDGMENT : R.N. MANJULA, J. 1. The above Civil Revision Petition placed before us under the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice pursuant to the orders of reference made by K.Raviraja Pandian.J (as he then was) dated 27.01.2003 in view of the same set of facts Sampath.J in S.A.No.912/1987 made an order for reference dated 01.07.1999, but the said reference not decided and remain inconclusive. The question of law made in this Civil Revision Petition is Whether a decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of properties alleged to be Kudiyiruppu, is a nullity or whether the Civil Court has prima facie jurisdiction to pass a decree under the Kudiyiruppu Act? 2. The point of reference made by Sampath.J in S.A.No.912/1987 in the order of reference 01.07.1999 was as to Whether the Civil Courts have got jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976, when the authorities under the said Act, seized of the matter in Second Appeal No.912 of 1987. The Division Bench before whom the reference made in S.A.No.912/1987 was placed under the order of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, had observed that the question of reference would not arise to the facts of that case and disposed the second appeal itself by dismissing it on 12.03.2001. 3. Now the Hon'ble Chief Justice has observed that the earlier reference as to whether the Civil Courts have prima facie jurisdiction to pass a decree under the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976, not decided and given orders to place the present reference made in this Civil Revision Petition before this bench for answering the question posed by the Single Judge in the order of reference dated 27.01.2003. The short facts of the case where from this reference is as under: 4. The deceased first respondent of this Revision Petition has filed a suit in O.S.No.647 of 1983 against the father of the Revision Petitioner Govindasamy, for a relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The said Govindasamy who was a defendant therein has raised a defence that he has title over the suit property as a Kudiyiruppudar. Thereafter he remained exparte and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 21.06.1988. A petition filed in I.A.No.2382/1989 to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed and the CRP filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.2283/1989 was also dismissed. Thereafter he remained exparte and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 21.06.1988. A petition filed in I.A.No.2382/1989 to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed and the CRP filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.2283/1989 was also dismissed. The respondent filed Execution Petition for executing the decree obtained in O.S.No.647 of 1983. During the pendency of the Execution Petition, Govindasamy died. The son of Govindasamy who is the petitioner herein, has filed a claim petition under Section 47 C.P.C in E.A.No.663 of 1993. While filing the said claim petition, the claim petitioner has produced the Kudiyiruppu assignment given to his father Govindasamy and that has been marked as Ex.A1. He claimed that the Trial Court omitted to note that the jurisdiction to decide on the Kudiyiruppu right has been barred u/s 23 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership Act) (Act 40 of 1971) and hence the decree passed by the Civil Court is a nullity. The claim petition in E.A.No.663 of 1993 was dismissed by the Executing Court for the reason that the objection as to Jurisdiction ought to have been raised in the suit itself and Govindasamy having remained ex-parte, the petitioner cannot raise a claim now before the Executing Court. And that after the patta is conferred, the Civil Court has jurisdiction. And having failed to produce Ex.A1 – patta before the trial Court, it cannot be raised before the Execution Court and claimed that the decree of the trial Court is a nullity. Further the claim of the Petitioner is barred by limitation. 4.1 When the petitioner claims that the suit property is a Kudiyiruppu for which patta has been conferred on his deceased father Govindasamy, the deceased first respondent claimed title to the suit property through purchase. Though the pleadings of the deceased first respondent before the Trial Court in the case from which this reference got originated, is not available, as it appears from the orders passed by the Execution Court in E.A.No.663/1993 that the deceased first respondent has claimed title to the suit property by alleging that he had purchased the same from one Chinnadurai. However the date of his purchase is not known from the records now available before this Court. So the facts of this case and the question of reference revolves around the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) 1971 (Act 40 of 1971. However the date of his purchase is not known from the records now available before this Court. So the facts of this case and the question of reference revolves around the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) 1971 (Act 40 of 1971. Submissions of the learned counsels 5. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.R.Meenal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bhagavath Krishnan for Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the respondents offered their submissions in connection with the question of law in reference and their submissions heard. 5.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any issue surrounding the factum of Kudiyiruppu should be decided in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act 40 of 1971 by the Appropriate Authority as found in the said Act and not by the Civil Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted as per section 23 of Act 40 of 1971. 5.2 The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Authorised Officer can decide only whether a person claiming right under Act 40 of 1971 is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer etc., and any issues about the preexisting rights of the respective parties should be dealt by the Civil Courts, which alone has got the jurisdiction to deal with. And it is further submitted that once the enquiry about Kudiyiruppu is over and a patta is given, any other subsequent suit involving the rights of parties is just like any other civil suit under Section 9 of civil suit and hence the jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the deceased first respondent is not barred and the decree passed by the Trial Court has attained a finality and hence the petitioner cannot claim any right before the Execution Court by producing Ex.A1 Kudiyiruppu patta. Legislative background and Object 6. Since the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) 1971 (Act 40 of 1971) is a beneficial legislation, it is worthwhile to peep a little into its legislative history and its objects. Shortly before the advent of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, several land owners started to dispose of their lands just in order to escape from the consequences of the Land Ceiling Act. They apprehended that the Land Ceiling Act would impose ceiling on the agricultural land holdings. Shortly before the advent of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, several land owners started to dispose of their lands just in order to escape from the consequences of the Land Ceiling Act. They apprehended that the Land Ceiling Act would impose ceiling on the agricultural land holdings. During that course, the land owners started to evict the agriculturists and agricultural labourers who were cultivating their lands by residing in the Kudiyiruppus situated on and adjoining the lands. The Government foresaw a possibility for agrarian unrest due to such large scale eviction of farmers and thought that it should be prevented. It was initially thought that certain provisions to safeguard the occupants of Kudiyiruppu should be included in the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 itself. When the bill was presented before the joint select committee, it was suggested that the provisions relating to Kudiyiruppu should be in a separate bill and that should be brought immediately and should be in force for three years in order to prevent the eviction of the agriculturist. The idea was to enact a comprehensive legislation regarding occupants of Kudiyiruppu after a detailed examination and then to confer permanent rights. Pending such a comprehensive legislation, the Government needed to give temporary protection to agriculturists and agricultural labourers, who were in occupation of Kudiyiruppus as on 31st March, 1959. In order to protect them from getting evicted by the land owners, the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1961) was enacted. 6.1 However, the above Act was a temporary measure which had to be kept in force for three years. Under this Act, those persons who have already been evicted had the right to seek restoration of their possession. The right to seek restoration was available to those who were in occupation of Kudiyiruppu on the date of 31st March, 1959. Various amendments have been brought subsequently and re-enactment of the Act was also done in the year 1975. By virtue of these amended provisions, protection from eviction was given to all persons who were occupying the Kudiyiruppus irrespective of their date of occupation. Because of these beneficial legislations, no peasant can be evicted from a Kudiyiruppu except in accordance with the provisions of these Acts. By virtue of these amended provisions, protection from eviction was given to all persons who were occupying the Kudiyiruppus irrespective of their date of occupation. Because of these beneficial legislations, no peasant can be evicted from a Kudiyiruppu except in accordance with the provisions of these Acts. 6.2 The Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971 and the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976, are in continuation of Act 38 of 1961 and as per the latest Tamil Nadu Kudiyiruppu Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990 (President Act 39 of 1990), the benefit of conferment of ownership is made available to persons who proved to be in occupation of any Kudiyiruppu on the 1st date of April 1990. The Government has also made Rules to prepare the record of persons occupying Kudiyiruppu. Though, the Act to protect from eviction and Conferment of Ownership Act were enacted to protect the interest of the farmers, the conditions to avail the benefit under these respective Acts were different. So the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, (40 of 1971) have to be understood in its own terms, though the larger purpose is to protect the interest of the agriculturist and agricultural labourers. 6.3 On the whole, the intention to bring this agrarian reform is to confer ownership right in respect of Kudiyiruppu on the agriculturists and the agricultural labourers who were occupying any site or dwelling house and hut for the purpose of their residence. Even if the superstructure was put up by some other persons other than the agriculturist, in view of this Act, such superstructures also vested on the agriculturist. Since the agriculturist and agricultural labourers are very poor, the Government paid lump sum compensation to the land owners or other interested persons. So the Government itself took the liability to pay compensation to the land owners or the owners of the superstructure. The Government also has the power to acquire the lands used by the occupants as Kudiyiruppu for the purpose of making it available to the occupants and hence such lands continued to be used by them for the very same purposes. 6.4 So the holistic object of the legislation is to ensure economic security to a large number of agriculturist or agricultural labourers, who are considered as the backbone of the State’s prosperity. 6.4 So the holistic object of the legislation is to ensure economic security to a large number of agriculturist or agricultural labourers, who are considered as the backbone of the State’s prosperity. By creating such favourable conditions, the Government encouraged the agricultural production and there was growth in the agricultural economy. If an agriculturist is found to be fulfilling the basic requirements for grant of Kudiyiruppu patta, such pattas are issued by the Appropriate Authorities after making due enquiry. Powers of the Authorised Officers 7. The power of the Authorised officer is enunciated in Section 3B of the Act as under: Section 3-B. Authorised officer to decide whether a person is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer, etc. - (1) If any question arises – (a) whether any person is an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer; or (b) whether any land is an agricultural land, or (c) whether any site is a Kudiyiruppu, or (d) whether any area adjacent to a dwelling house or hut is necessary for the convenient enjoyment of such dwelling house or hut, such question shall be decided by the authorised officer. (2) In deciding any question under sub-section (1), the authorised officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. 7.1 As per Section 4, the Authorised officer has to decide whether any agriculturist or agricultural labourer was occupying any Kudiyiruppu as on the 1st day of April 1990. A person aggrieved by the decision of the authorised officer, can appeal before the District Collector or any other officer who have been specified by the Government. Some relevant terms 8. Section 2 of the Act defines various terms including agriculturist labourer, agriculturist, authorised officer, Kudiyiruppu, person interested as follows: “Agricultural labourer” means a person whose principal means of livelihood is the income he gets as wages for his manual labour on agricultural land(but does not include plantation labour). "Agriculturist" means a person who cultivates agricultural land by the contribution of his own manual labour or the manual labour of any member of his family. "Authorized Officer" means any [Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar] authorized by the Government by notification to exercise the powers conferred on, and discharge the duties imposed upon, the Authorized Officer under this Act, for such area as may be specified in the notification. "Authorized Officer" means any [Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar] authorized by the Government by notification to exercise the powers conferred on, and discharge the duties imposed upon, the Authorized Officer under this Act, for such area as may be specified in the notification. "Kudiyiruppu" means the site of any dwelling house or hut occupied, either as tenant or as licensee, by any agriculturist or agricultural labourer and includes such other area adjacent to the dwelling house or hut as may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment of such dwelling house or hut. "person interested" in relation to any Kudiyiruppu or superstructure thereon includes any person claiming, or entiled to claim, an interest in the compensation payable on account of the vesting of the Kudiyiruppu or superstructure in the occupant of the Kudiyiruppu. Conflicting views of the Courts 9. The Courts have rendered conflicting judgments on the point of jurisdiction in the matters of Kudiyiruppu. Since these judgments of the Courts deal with the nuances on the segment of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the matters of Kudiyiruppu, to have an idea of these judgements would be of much help in this exercise to find an answer for the point of reference. 9.1 In the earliest decision of this Court rendered in Sethu Padayachi Vs. Periaswami Padayachi reported in (1972 85 LW 259), Justice. V.Ramasamy (as he then was) held that the provisions of the Act as set out above the Jurisdiction conferred on the Authorised Officer under the Act was only with reference to Kudiyiruppu. It is only when the area of the Kudiyiruppu is not in dispute, the Authorised Officer will have exclusive jurisdiction. Where there is a dispute as to the area covered by the Kudiyiruppu, the Civil Court cannot grant any relief in respect of the Kudiyiruppu but it has jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of rest of the area. So far as the area relates to the Kudiyiruppu, only the Authorised Officer alone can grant relief. However, in the said suit, the defendant could not establish himself as an agricultural labourer falling under the classification of the Special Act. 9.2 Justice. N.S. Ramasamy (as he then was) decided in the case of Ganesan Vs. So far as the area relates to the Kudiyiruppu, only the Authorised Officer alone can grant relief. However, in the said suit, the defendant could not establish himself as an agricultural labourer falling under the classification of the Special Act. 9.2 Justice. N.S. Ramasamy (as he then was) decided in the case of Ganesan Vs. Madurai Achari reported in ( 1978 91 LW 6 ) as under: "Of course, it would be open to the tenant to raise the question that the site is a Kudiyiruppu as defined under the Act, and that he is entitled to protection under the Act. In such a case, what is to happen to the suit in ejectment filed by the owner in the civil Court? Undoubtedly, the civil Court has to go into the question whether the site is a Kudiyiruppu or not. If it finds that it is not a Kudiyiruppu, then the further questions, arising in the suit have to be determined, and the suit has to be disposed of on merits." 9.3 In the above case, the Court illustrated a situation where the Civil Court might get into the incidental necessity to decide about the issue of Kudiyiruppu. However when a Review Petition was filed before the same Court in the said case (Ganesan Vs. Madurai Achari ) reported in 1979 92 LW 91 , the Court observed that while passing the earlier judgement in that case, the existence of the amended provisions of Sections 3A and 3B were not brought to the notice of the Court. And it is further observed that consequent to the introduction of Sections 3A and 3B, it is the Authorised Officer who has the authority to decide whether a person is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or whether any site is a Kudiyiruppu or not. However, in that case the landlord did not concede that the site was a Kudiyiruppu and so it is held that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Court is not wrong. It is further observed that after entertaining a suit for ejectment, the Civil Court cannot dismiss the suit without even going into the question whether a site is a Kudiyiruppu or not. It is further observed that after entertaining a suit for ejectment, the Civil Court cannot dismiss the suit without even going into the question whether a site is a Kudiyiruppu or not. And in the absence of any provision to transfer the suit to the Authorities under the Act, the Court cannot transfer the suit immediately on seeing the claim of Kudiyiruppu without even making an enquiry on that aspect. 9.4 In the later judgement rendered in Thangavelu Naickar Vs. Muthukumara Chettiar reported in ( 1979 92 LW 678 ) Justice V.Balasubrahmanyan (as he then was), expressed that he had a different view and he differed from the earlier judgement of Justice. N.S. Ramasamy in Ganesan’s case. His Lordship gave a clear finding that in view of the expressed terms of Section 23, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred. While making the said findings, the learned Judge has observed that even in the suits for mere injunction the question whether a house site is a Kudiyiruppu or not cannot be decided by the Civil Court. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below: ".... 11. I am not in a position to accept the entirety of the reason of the learned Judge as borne out by the statutory provisions. It is true that the question whether a given house site is or is not a Kudiyiruppu is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer or the District Collector functioning under the Act. But it cannot be said that the question whether a house site is or is not a Kudiyiruppu cannot be decided at all by these functionaries. Under the plain terms of Section 4 of the Act XL of 1971, it is the Authorised Officer alone who is competent to decide whether an agriculturist or agricultural labourer was occupying Kudiyiruppu (sic) 19th June, 1971 and since it is within his jurisdiction, it is outside the competence of the civil Courts to decide under the exclusory provisions of Section 23. When Section 4 in clear terms confers jurisdiction on the Authorised Officer to decide the question whether any agriculturist or agricultural labourer was ccupying Kudiyiruppu on 19th June, 1971, it is implicit in the section that he has also jurisdiction to decide whether the individual concerned is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer, whether the place under his occupation was a Kudiyiruppu or not and whether the occupation was on 19th June, 1971 or not. There is an obvious inconvenience in holding that the Authorised Officer is competent to decide only one question, namely, whether an agriculturist or agricultural labourer was occupying the Kudiyiruppu on 19th June, 1971, leaving at large other questions between the parties, namely, whether he is an agriculturist or not, whether he is an agricultural labourer or not, whether the land is a Kudiyiruppu or not, to be dicided by common law Courts. If all these questions are within the jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer, then, by definition, they must be outside the jurisdiction of the civil Courts, and as I pointed out, the express terms of Section 23 forbid the civil Courts even to issue an injunction in regard to these matters." 9.5 Similar questions of law arose in Veerappan Vs. Shanmugavelu (1981 94 LW 741). The learned single Judge Shumugam, J (as he then was), held by referring Sections 3B and 23 of the Act that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide about the factum of Kudiyiruppu, has been excluded. It is observed that even without looking into the provisions of sec.3B, in view of the plain provision of sec.23, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred. This judgment is in agreement with the findings of V.V.Balasubrhamanyan. J in Thangavelu Naicker case. 9.6 The same issue arose before the Division Bench of this Court in Kalyanasundaram Udayar Vs. Pazhaniayya Udayar ( 1982 95 LW 562 ). In the said case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench Ramanujam.J and Sethuraman.J (as they then were) referred the earlier conflicting views aired in the two different single judges in Ganesan Vs. Madurai Achari and Thangavelu Naickar Vs. Muthukumara Chettiar . 9.6.1 The division bench pointed out the analogy between Section 23 of this Act and Section 16A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (10 of 1969). Madurai Achari and Thangavelu Naickar Vs. Muthukumara Chettiar . 9.6.1 The division bench pointed out the analogy between Section 23 of this Act and Section 16A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (10 of 1969). The Division Bench reiterated the observation of the Full Bench made in connection with Section 16A of the Act 10 of 1969 in the case of Periathambi Goundan Vs. District Revenue Officer and observed that the Full Bench of this Court has taken a view that after Section 16A came into force, the natural and normal course for the parties was to go before the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 to decide the dispute whether a party was a cultivating tenant or not. Consequently, the interpretation of Section 40 of 1971 of the Kudiyiruppu Act was also given in the light of the said judgement of the Full Bench and concluded that it is the Authorised Officer who has got the jurisdiction to decide on the dispute about the Kudiyiruppu. The Division Bench also observed that in their view, the direction given by the learned Single Judge in the case of Ganesan Vs. Madurai Achari, is not valid because Act 40 of 1971 does not have a similar provision like Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act of 1969 or Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. In those provisions of the Special Acts, it is stated that notwithstanding any decree of the Court, the tenant cannot be evicted from the premises except in accordance with the provisions of the relative Acts. 9.6.2 According to the learned judges of the Division Bench, in the absence of any such non-obstante clause in any of the provisions of the Kudiyiruppu Act, there is no method or manner by which the defendant could approach the Authorised Officer to get over the Civil Court's decree for possession. And so the decree passed by the Civil Court can immediately be put into execution and the defendant will be evicted from the Kudiyiruppu notwithstanding his rights under the Act. This is exactly the same situation in which the defendant in the suit connecting to this present reference was also placed. And so the decree passed by the Civil Court can immediately be put into execution and the defendant will be evicted from the Kudiyiruppu notwithstanding his rights under the Act. This is exactly the same situation in which the defendant in the suit connecting to this present reference was also placed. 9.6.3 The Division Bench has held that to pass a decree for possession against the defendant which is capable of being executed straightaway without reference to the provisions of the Act, is erroneous. The above findings of the Division Bench in its own language are extracted as below: "7. However, situations may arise when one party proceeds on the basis that the Act does not apply to a particular piece of land, but the other party comes forward with a case that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act in relation to that land. Such was the case before N.S. Ramaswami, J., in Ganesan v. Madurai Achari (1978) 91 L.W. 6 . In that case, the plaintiff came forward with a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant and the defendant contended that he is an agriculturist in possession of the suit land as Kudiyiruppu and therefore he cannot be evicted from the suit land. The learned Judge held that the question whether a person is an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer is under Section 4 left to be decided by the civil Court though the further question whether such an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer is occupying the Kudiyiruppu on the relevant date and as such entitled to the benefits of the Act has necessarily to go before the authorised officer concerned and the civil Court will have no jurisdiction to decide that dispute. We are of the view that on the facts, the judgment in Ganesan v. Madurai Achari (1978) 91 L.W. 6 , cannot be construed as holding that in spite of Section 23 of the Act, the civil Court will have, jurisdiction to decide the disputes contemplated by Section 4. We are of the view that on the facts, the judgment in Ganesan v. Madurai Achari (1978) 91 L.W. 6 , cannot be construed as holding that in spite of Section 23 of the Act, the civil Court will have, jurisdiction to decide the disputes contemplated by Section 4. According to the learned Judge, where a plaintiff files a suit for recovery of possession of a certain property presumably on the basis that the Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1971 does not come into play, and the defendant by way of defence raises the plea that the suit laud is covered by that Act and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the said Act, the Court cannot dismiss the suit merely on the basis of the defence unless the Court finds the defence put forward has been prima facie established. However, the learned Judge in that case directed a decree for possession to be passed subject to the rights of the defendant under the Act. It is in the light of the said decision the lower Appellate Court had passed a decree for possession in this case. 8. Thangavelu Naicker v. Muthukumara Chettiar , was a case where the plaintiff came forward with a suit for injunction asserting that he is an agriculturist in possession of Kudiyiruppu and as such his possession should be protected by the issue of an injunction. Such a suit was rightly held to be barred by Section 23 of the Act as the plaintiff himself seeks a decision from the civil Court that he is an agriculturist in possession of Kudiyiruppu. On the facts of the respective cases, the said two decisions have to be taken as rightly decided and there is no conflict at all between them as both of them lay down that the civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted by Section 23 of the Act in respect of disputes coming under Section 4 of the Act. However, we are of the view that the direction given by N.S. Ramaswami, J., in Ganesan v. Madurai Achari (1978) 91 L.W. 6 , to grant a decree for possession to the plaintiff subject to the defendant's rights under the Act has no legal basis. However, we are of the view that the direction given by N.S. Ramaswami, J., in Ganesan v. Madurai Achari (1978) 91 L.W. 6 , to grant a decree for possession to the plaintiff subject to the defendant's rights under the Act has no legal basis. Such a direction cannot be validly, granted for, there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1971 similar to Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 or Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955, wherein it is stated that notwithstanding any decree of Court, the tenant cannot be evicted from the premises except in accordance with the provisions of the relative Acts. In the absence of any such provision in the Act there is no method or manner by which the defendant could approach the authorised officer to get over the civil Court's decree, for possession and as the decree passed by the civil Court can immediately be put into execution he will be evicted from the Kudiyiruppu notwithstanding his rights under the Act. Further, such a decree, for possession will be inconsistent with or defeat the provisions of the Act which is intended to confer certain benefit on persons occupying Kudiyiruppu. 9. We are, therefore, of the view that the lower Appellate Court is in error in passing a decree for possession against the defendant which is capable of being executed straightway without reference to the provisions of the Act. Such a direction is also inconsistent with the findings rendered by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Act. If the civil Court were to pass a decree for possession, that would be completely defeating the provisions of the said Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the, decision of the lower Appellate Court and restore the decision of the trial Court. It is, however, made clear that the plaintiff, if so advised, can approach the authorities constituted under the Act for any relief as against the defendant under the provisions of the Act." 9.6.4 The above judgement of the division bench was passed following the judgment of the full bench of this Court in Periathambi Goundan Vs. It is, however, made clear that the plaintiff, if so advised, can approach the authorities constituted under the Act for any relief as against the defendant under the provisions of the Act." 9.6.4 The above judgement of the division bench was passed following the judgment of the full bench of this Court in Periathambi Goundan Vs. District Revenue Officer, which had dealt with the bar of jurisdiction under sec.16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (10 of 1969). 9.6.5 So as of now as per the judgment of the said Division Bench, the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to deal with or to pass a decree for possession. Because the person who is entitled to the benefit of Kudiyiruppu will be deprived of his right, once the decree of the Civil Court for possession is executed and that will defeat the very purpose of the legislation. 9.6.6 But the case in which this reference arose, has met with a different situation where the deceased who claimed entitlement under the Act remained ex-parte and the decree attained finality and now in the stage of execution. Only at the time of execution, the son of the deceased first defendant had produced the Kudiyiruppu patta of his father by filing a claim petition, wherein he has alleged that the decree of the Civil Court is without jurisdiction and it is a nullity. So the point of reference now before us is about the validity of a decree that has been passed already and whether it is a nullity. 10. K.P.Sivasubramaniam,J (as he then was) took a different view in the subsequent case of Esakki Vs. Subramania Aiyer ( 1998 2 CTC 141 ), by distinguishing the facts of that case from the decision of the Division Bench in Kalyanasundaram Udayar Vs. Pazhaniayya Udayar. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ramalinga Samigal Madam reported in ( 1985 4 SCC 10 ) and asserted that the Civil Court certainly has got the power to decide as to whether a person claiming protection under the particular enactment is entitled and qualified to invoke the provisions of the Act. From the facts of Esakki Vs. Ramalinga Samigal Madam reported in ( 1985 4 SCC 10 ) and asserted that the Civil Court certainly has got the power to decide as to whether a person claiming protection under the particular enactment is entitled and qualified to invoke the provisions of the Act. From the facts of Esakki Vs. Subramania Aiyer, it is found that the defendant himself was owning land and he was totally disentitled to the protection of the Act. So it is held that merely by filing a petition before the authorised officer after receiving the notice from the plaintiff in a suit for eviction, the defendant cannot claim that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that if the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the party was entitled to the protection of the Act, no further decision can be taken by the Civil Court and the parties should be directed to approach the appropriate authority under the Act. It is felt that if the Civil Court does not exercise its jurisdiction to find out a prima facie case of entitlement under the Act, it would be an easy process for everyone to abuse the statutory provisions by filing some frivolous petitions before the Appropriate Authorities and prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction. 11. In the later decision of this Court in Azhagarsamy Pillai Vs. Khaja Aminudeen Hussaini, S.Ashok Kumar, J. (as he then was) followed the judgement of the Division Bench in Kalyanasundaram Udayar Vs. Pazhaniayya Udayar and held that the question whether any agriculturist or any agricultural labourer is in possession of Kudiyiruppu has necessarily to be decided by the authorised officer. In fact, in the said case, three substantial questions of law, which are more or less similar to the present reference, have been framed as under: "... 5. At the time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law in this Second Appeal: (i) Whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction of occupant of a Kudiyiruppu in view of the Bar under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kuduyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act (XL of 1971)? (ii) Whether the non framing of issues and failure to give finding on the requirement of owner occupation and willful default by the Courts below is correct? (ii) Whether the non framing of issues and failure to give finding on the requirement of owner occupation and willful default by the Courts below is correct? (iii)The burden of proof shifted on the appellant to establish whether he is an agriculturist occupant on the suit site is justifiable in view of the Explanation I for Clause (8) of Section 2 of the Act XL of 1971?" 11.1 In the above case, all these substantial questions of law have been answered in favour of the appellant who was the defendant and who claimed the benefit of Kudiyiruppu Act. The liberty was given to the plaintiff to agitate his rights under the provisions of Kudiyiruppu Act. 12. In a recent judgement of the High Court in Sarojini Ammal & others Vs. Papathi Ammal & others (2019 SCC Online Mad 7093) C.V.Karthikeyan,J has also referred the judgement of the Division Bench in Kalyanasundaram Udayar Vs. Pazhaniayya Udayar. It was a case filed to declare the earlier judgment passed in a case as non-est, where Kudiyiruppu right is pleaded. That earlier suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession. The learned single judge has observed that in the present case also same issue has been raised in a different fashion and that it is only a clever way drafting a plaint and to raise the same issue again. By making such an observation, the learned single judge disallowed the relief prayed for. Lingering issue about Jurisdiction 13. Despite the scope of Section 23 of Act 40 of 1971 which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court has been dealt by several single benches and division bench of this Court by making reference to the provisions of other statutes which are in pari materia, the questions surrounding its impact still lingers in some way or other. It is probably because of the different situations and consequences that arise each time. Though it is easier to give a simple answer in consistent with the various decisions of this Court, the matter needs further elaboration in order to give more clarity which can cover different situations that might arise before the Civil Courts, to the extent possible. 13.1 If a strict interpretation is given as per the plain language of the provisions of Section 23, that would debar the Courts from even looking into the prima facie case where Kudiyiruppu right is pleaded. 13.1 If a strict interpretation is given as per the plain language of the provisions of Section 23, that would debar the Courts from even looking into the prima facie case where Kudiyiruppu right is pleaded. On the other hand, if it is presumed that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits of this nature, the persons who are entitled to get the benefits of the Special Act will be deprived of his Kudiyiruppu right. It is especially so in cases where the relief of recovery of possession is granted and executed. The provision which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court is a salient feature in all land reform laws. The various such enactments which were made to protect interest of the agriculturists contemplate a simple procedure of approaching the Appropriate Officer to seek a land remedy than approaching the courts. It is easier for a villager to approach his thalaiyari (Village Assistant) to tell about his problem and seek his assistance to prepare a petition and present it to the Revenue Authority than to meet an advocate, pay his fee and file a suit in the Court. The cost and consumption of time to dispose these petitions by the Appropriate Revenue Authority is comparatively cheaper and lesser than the litigation before the Courts. 13.2 Normally, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except when it is expressly barred. It is noteworthy to refer to the observation of the Hon’ble division bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Vanathan MuthuRaja Vs Ramalingam ( 1997 (6) SCC 143 ) on the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. His Lordships in the above case observed that: “3…. Under Section 9, CPC, the courts shall, subject to the provisions contained therein, have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits cognizance of which is either expressly or impliedly barred. When a legal right is infringed, a suit would lie unless there is a bar against entertainment of such civil suit and the civil courts would take cognizance of it. Therefore, the normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature expect those of which cognizance is either expressly or by necessary implication excluded. Therefore, the normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature expect those of which cognizance is either expressly or by necessary implication excluded. The Rule of construction being that every presumption would be made in favour of the existence of a right and remedy in a democratic set up governed by rule of law and jurisdiction of the civil courts is assumed. The exclusion would, therefore, normally be an exception. Courts generally construe the provisions strictly when jurisdiction of the civil courts is claimed to be excluded. However, in the development of civil adjudication and abnormal delay at hierarchical stages, statutes intervene and provide alternative mode of resolution of civil disputes with less expensive but expeditious disposal. It is settled legal position that if a Tribunal with limited jurisdiction cannot assume exclusive jurisdiction and decide for itself the dispute conclusively, in such a situation, it is the court that is required to decide whether the Tribunal with limited jurisdiction has correctly assumed jurisdiction and decided the dispute within its limits. it is settled law that when jurisdiction has is conferred on a Tribunal, the court examine whether the essential principles of jurisdiction have been followed and decided by the Tribunals leaving the decision on merits to the Tribunal. It is also equally settled legal position that where a statute gives finality to the orders of the special Tribunal, the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded, if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit. Such a provision, however does not exclude those cases where the provision, of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Where there is an express bar of jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Where there is no express exclusion, the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. Where there is no express exclusion, the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case, it is necessary that the statute creates a special right or liability and provides remedy for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right or liability shall be determined by the Tribunal so constituted and the question whether remedies are normally associated with the action in civil courts or prescribed by the statutes or not require examination. Therefore, each case requires examination whether the statute provides right and remedy and whether the scheme of the Act is that the procedure provided will be conclusive and thereby excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect thereof.” 13.3 So according to the above observation of the Supreme Court, the test to presume jurisdiction of the Court is whether certain statute expressly or impliedly bars its jurisdiction and whether the scheme of the statute provides adequate and efficacious remedy even when the jurisdiction is barred. If the Act provides sufficient and efficacious alternative remedy to all situations and to all the aggrieved, invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under sec.9 C.P.C will not arise. Overriding effect 14. In all the above judgements of the courts which have been discussed above, it is seen that the Courts have primarily gone into the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s 23 of the Kudiyiruppu Act. But it is also essential to appreciate the overriding effect of the provisions of the Act (Section 26) whenever inconsistency arises. 14.1 While elaborating the impact of overriding effect, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held in the case of Jagadish Singh Vs. Heeralal and Ors., [ 2014 (1) SCC 479 ], that the overriding effect includes Section 9 CPC also. It is a case in which the overriding effect prescribed under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act has been dealt. For the purpose of convenience, the relevant portion of the judgement is extracted hereunder: "22. .... Heeralal and Ors., [ 2014 (1) SCC 479 ], that the overriding effect includes Section 9 CPC also. It is a case in which the overriding effect prescribed under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act has been dealt. For the purpose of convenience, the relevant portion of the judgement is extracted hereunder: "22. .... The opening portion of Section 34 clearly states that no civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding “in respect of any matter” which a DRT or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Securitisation Act to determine. The expression “in respect of any matter” referred to in Section 34 would take in the “measures” provided under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act. Consequently, if any aggrieved person has got any grievance against any “measures” taken by the borrower under sub-section (4) of Section 13, the remedy open to him is to approach the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal and not the civil Court. The civil Court in such circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of those matters which fall under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act because those matters fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal. Further, Section 35 says, the Securitisation Act overrides other laws, if they are inconsistent with the provisions of that Act, which takes in Section 9 CPC as well." 14.2 The above dictum of the Supreme Court has been reaffirmed in Sree Anandhakumar Mills Limited Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors., [(2019) 14 SCC 788]. This has reversed the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Nandini (2010 SCC Online Mad 5495). In the said case, the Supreme Court has held earlier that sec.34 does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits like declaration of title to the properties, partition right etc, which are based on the pre-existing rights of parties. 14.3 Though the impact of overriding effect under sec.35 of SARFAESI Act on sec.9 C.P.C as settled by the Supreme Court is distinguishable from the Kudiyiruppu Act, where there is no provision as similar as to sec. 14.3 Though the impact of overriding effect under sec.35 of SARFAESI Act on sec.9 C.P.C as settled by the Supreme Court is distinguishable from the Kudiyiruppu Act, where there is no provision as similar as to sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, it cannot be omitted to be noticed that while excluding the jurisdiction of civil Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is more in favour of the object legislation than in favour of any other considerations. Implications of Suits and Decrees of Civil Courts in respect of K udiyiruppu 15. Sec.3 (1) and 2 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971) confer ownership on the occupant of Kudiyiruppu. The language of those provision states ‘be the owner’ of such Kudiyiruppu and the ownership is conferred in respect of both the site and the superstructure. The word ‘owner’ is defined under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 as under: “Owner” means any person holding land in severally or jointly or in common under a ryotwari settlement or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to the Government and includes a full owner or limited owner but does not include a mortgagee, lessee or a tenant. 15.1 This Court held in Gowri Vs. Lakshmigandam Ammal [ (1981) 2 MLJ 366 (Madras)], that the statutory Kudiyiruppu patta granted by the authorised officer under the Act 40 of 1971 is a document of title, unlike other pattas granted by the revenue authorities recognizing the possession of the party concerned. 15.2. As per sec.3 of the Act, (Act 40 of 1971) the agriculturist or agricultural labourer who was occupying any Kudiyiruppu on the specified day either as tenant or as licensee shall with effect from the date of the commencement of this Act becomes the owner of the Kudiyiruppu and such Kudiyiruppu shall vest in him absolutely free from all encumbrances. Further, as per sec.14 of the Act, the pattathar is also liable to reimburse the Government the amount of compensation paid to the owners or any interested persons and it will be recovered in installments or any other manner as stated in sec.14(2). As per Section 14(3), if the Kudiyiruppu pattathar omits to make payments as how shown in sub-section 2, that will be recoverable like arrears of land revenue. As per Section 14(3), if the Kudiyiruppu pattathar omits to make payments as how shown in sub-section 2, that will be recoverable like arrears of land revenue. As per Section 15, the transferee of the Kudiyiruppu is also liable to reimburse the compensation to the Government and such transfers if any should be only on the notice to the Government. So the ownership conferred on the occupant of Kudiyiruppu is subject to the payment of revenue to Government. 15.3. This elaboration of the nature of the ownership of the occupant of Kudiyiruppu has been made in order to impress that except the Government no other person has got any pre-existing right in the Kudiyiruppu property after the Kudiyiruppu patta is given to the occupant. Because the conferment of Kudiyiruppu patta extinguishes the all other rights in respect of the property and there is a statutory certification given to the occupant that the property vested on him is without any encumbrance. The only obligation or liability on the occupant in respect of the Kudiyiruppu property is to reimburse the compensation paid by the Government. 15.4 Even if there is any unsettled pre-existing right in respect of the Kudiyiruppu property the one and only remedy the aggrieved can get is compensation under sec. 6 of the Act and as fixed under sec. 7 and 17(5) r/w the Schedule of the Act and subject to the decision of the Authorised Officer in respect of the matters listed under sections 3-B and 4. The enquiries and decisions of the Authorised Officer under Sections 3-B and 4 itself settle the claim of the parties whoever interested in the Kudiyiruppu property. Hence there is a clear bar for the civil court to exercise jurisdiction. During the course of such enquiries it is possible that the Authorized Officer might deal with the title of persons in order to confirm the persons to whom the compensation should be paid as per sec.9(1) of the Act. Though such claims are civil in nature and fall under sec. 9 C.P.C, such questions of entitlement cannot be entertained by the civil courts due to the statutory bar, except on a reference made by the Appropriate Officer under Section 9(2). Though such claims are civil in nature and fall under sec. 9 C.P.C, such questions of entitlement cannot be entertained by the civil courts due to the statutory bar, except on a reference made by the Appropriate Officer under Section 9(2). 15.5 If the apportionment and payment of compensation is not acceptable to the parties and there is a dispute, then the Authorized Officer may refer such disputes to the civil court under Section 9(2) and by depositing the compensation amount into the court under sec.10 of the Act. Only at that juncture the civil court can assume its power to decide on the title of the parties and that too for a limited purpose of apportioning and paying the compensation and not to pass a decree for declaration of their title or for recovery of possession. So it cannot be accepted that the bar of jurisdiction to civil court will be lifted after the completion of conferment of Kudiyiruppu patta proceedings is over and hence a civil suit can be filed against in respect of the Kudiyiruppu properties like any other civil suit. 15.6 Even if it happens to be a claim involving two or more persons in respect of the same Kudiyiruppu property, the fact remains that the questions as to their respective status as ‘agriculturists or not’ and status of the property as ‘Kudiyiruppu or not’ need to be resolved. The Act confers powers on the Appropriate Authority to find answers to such questions. The powers of the Appropriate Officer under Sections 3B and 4 of the Act 40 of 1971 do not have any exceptions or exclusions so as to prevent him from deciding on the subjects mentioned in the said provisions, in case two or more persons make a same claim with respect to the same Kudiyiruppu. Section 4 speaks about the disputes that arise as to whether any agriculturist or agricultural labourer was in occupation of the Kudiyiruppu as on the prescribed date. The parties to such disputes need not necessarily be only owner of the land and the tenant of Kudiyiruppu. It can be any other third parties who are interested in the dispute. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Rules 1972, lays down procedure to be adopted by the Appropriate Officer while deciding the dispute under sec.4. It can be any other third parties who are interested in the dispute. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Rules 1972, lays down procedure to be adopted by the Appropriate Officer while deciding the dispute under sec.4. 15.7 Since the statutory assurance and certification of No Encumbrance is given to the occupant under sec. 3 (1) and 3(2) with regard to his ownership, no one can drag him court by seeking a prayer to dispossess him on the allegations of pre-existing right. If at all any suit is be filed by any third party in respect of the Kudiyiruppu property that could be filed only for the purpose of questioning the fairness or authenticity proceedings in connection with Kudiyiruppu properties on the ground that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Without the Government being a party no suit can be filed against the approved Kudiyirupputhar for dispossessing him from the Kudiyiruppu property. 15.8 A bonafide purchaser who did not have the knowledge about the Kudiyiruppu may come to court to enforce his right. But he can also claim compensation only from his transferor who had executed the deed of conveyance either by ignorance or by fraud. Since Government grants exempted to be registered under sec. 17 (2) (vii) of the Registration Act, anyone who purchases the property from the original owner subsequent to its transition may not know that it has already been conferred on the occupant. Since the patta under Kudiyiruppu Act confers title on the occupant, unless it is registered it will not appear in the Encumbrance Certificate and a bonafide purchaser cannot take notice of the same before purchase. Unlike other pattas, Kudiyiruppu patta conveys title and confers ownership and the date of eligibility to get this patta is being extended from time to time through amendments. Hence it is desirable to amend the relevant Acts to get the conferment/cancellation of Kudiyiruppu patta in respect of the Kudiyiruppu properties registered, however with stamp duty exemption. 15.9 As per Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1961), no person occupying any Kudiyiruppu on the 31st of March, 1959 shall be evicted from such Kudiyiruppu. 15.9 As per Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1961), no person occupying any Kudiyiruppu on the 31st of March, 1959 shall be evicted from such Kudiyiruppu. The Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Amendment Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1971) has amended Section 3(1) of the Act by removing the dates prescribed in the said provision. So with the amended sec. 3(1) right to protection from eviction is ensured to all occupants of Kudiyiruppu irrespective of the date of occupation. In fact, if any person who was in occupation of the Kudiyiruppu was evicted, he has the right to get his possession restored by giving application to the authorized officer. The authorized officer shall make an enquiry and pass an order as per Section 6 of the Act. 15.10 Act 20 of 1971 also amended sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961. However, right to restoration of possession is available under the amended sec.4 only to those persons who were in occupation of Kudiyirippu as on 31st March, 1959 to 09.04.1975 [on which date, Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Re-enacting Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1975) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette]. 15.11 When Section 3 was amended in a manner that right to protection from eviction is available to all the occupants of Kudiyiruppu irrespective of their date of occupation, the consequential sec.4 is worded as though it gives the right to restoration to persons who were in occupation as on 31st March 1959 to 09.04.1975 only. Actually it should also have been worded in a manner that the restorative remedy is available to all the occupants irrespective of their date of eviction [(i.e) after 31st March 1959 to 09.04.1975 and thereafter]. The above legislative omission may be because of the Act 40 of 1971 which is in force and which confers ownership rights to persons who were occupying the Kudiyiruppu as on 19th June 1971 (and later by virtue of an amendment in the year 1990 as on 1st April, 1990). However, it is desirable that the anomaly in the amended sections. However, it is desirable that the anomaly in the amended sections. 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1961), be rectified through proper amendment. 15.12 It is relevant to mention that sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Re-enacting Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1975) ensures that it shall not affect the operation of the Tamil Nadu Occupation of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act 1971. So the occupant of a Kudiyiruppu is entitled to get the reliefs and benefits of both the Acts in accordance with its own terms. 15.13 Sec.19 of Act 40 of 1971 is a vital provision in enforcing the purpose of this Act. By virtue of the Power of Entry given to Authorized Officer under sec.19, the Authorised Officer is empowered to enter into the Kudiyiruppu in order to give effect to the provisions of the Act 40 of 1971. So any Kudiyirupputhar on whom the ownership is conferred can get his possession protected by giving an application to the Appropriate Officer himself to make use of his Powers of Entry under sec.19. 15.14 In view of the powers and functions of the Authorised Officer, possibilities for the participation of all parties interested in any dispute, procedure established by the Rules, provision for Appeals and the Objects, these Special Acts themselves seem to be self-contained and having sufficient remedial measures to safeguard the interest of all the stake holders in respect of the Kudiyiruppu. Before giving an answer as to whether the decrees of the civil court passed in respect of properties alleged to be Kudiyiruppu, is a nullity or not, it necessitated to elaborate whether the very indulgence of the civil court is essential in the scheme of the Kudiyiruppu Acts. Status of Kudiyiruppu is a continuing one 16. As per sec. 15-A (1) the Kudiyiruppu pattathar cannot alienate the land or encumber the same for a period of 10 years. However he can mortgage in cooperative banks only for agricultural development or housing development. After issuing the Kudiyiruppu patta if any violation/wrongful claim was found out, as per sec.15-A (2), it is always open to the authorities to make an enquiry and declare the alienation null and void. However he can mortgage in cooperative banks only for agricultural development or housing development. After issuing the Kudiyiruppu patta if any violation/wrongful claim was found out, as per sec.15-A (2), it is always open to the authorities to make an enquiry and declare the alienation null and void. Powers are given to Authorised Officers themselves to decide about the validity of the alienations made by the pattathars and to declare it null and void. By way of penalty, the rights will be forfeited and the land will be vested in the Government. Same is the case if the pattathar allows anyone to be in occupation of the property as his benami [sec.15-A (3)]. As per sec.15-A (4), after the decision taken by the Appropriate Officer under sec.15-A (2) and (3), the occupant or any other person refuses to vacate the Kudiyiruppu, the Authorised Officer will evict the persons and take possession. So even after the process of conferment of patta on the occupant is completed, the status of the land as Kudiyiruppu does not change. The character of the land as Kudiyiruppu does not change even after the expiry of mandatory 10 years period and after the payment entire revenue dues. The Character of the property as Kudiyiruppu will continue so long as it remains to be so in the Land Register. So long as the property is a Kudiyiruppu and so long as the Kudiyiruppu is in the occupation of the Kudiyiryppu pattathar or his legal heir the benefits of Kudiyiruppu Acts are available to them as per the terms of the Kudiyiruppu Acts. Impact of Aleination/ Encumbrance 17. The continuing status of the property and its occupant does not mean that the agriculturist, who is in occupation of Kudiyiruppu, would never alienate/encumber the Kudiyiruppu (after the expiry of 10 years and after paying the entire land revenue to the Government) or even if he alienates or encumbers the Kudiyiruppu, the transferee should also be an agriculturist/agricultural labourer. Since ownership rights are conferred on the agriculturist who was given with Kudiyiruppu patta, such restrictions on alienations (beyond the conditions prescribed under Sections 15 and 15A of the Act 40 of 1971), cannot be imposed. Since ownership rights are conferred on the agriculturist who was given with Kudiyiruppu patta, such restrictions on alienations (beyond the conditions prescribed under Sections 15 and 15A of the Act 40 of 1971), cannot be imposed. In case, the Kudiyiruppu property is transferred to someone who is not an agriculturist or the property is being used for any other purpose other than Kudiyiruppu, then the property should be declassified from the category of Kudiyiruppu. 17.1. If any Kudiyirupputhar or a transferee of a Kudiyiruppu, after the expiry of mandatory 10 years period, sells the property to a person other than an agriculturist or wishes to use the property for some other purpose other than Kudiyiruppu, such changes should be effected in the relevant Revenue Registers maintained by the Appropriate Officer for declassifying the property from the category of Kudiyiruppu. Since the Appropriate Officer alone is authorized to make enquiry and decide on the facts whether a property is a Kudiyiruppu or not, the party intends to get declassification, should apply to the Authorised Officer and prove that the property is no more a Kudiyiruppu property or a person who is now in occupation is not an agriculturist/agricultural labourer. So, even a person who has derived a valid title from the Kudiyiruppu pattathar, cannot approach the Civil Court for any remedy in respect of the Kudiyiruppu property unless the land in question is declassified from the category of Kudiyiruppu on an order of the Appropriate Officer. Consolidation 18. Only after the Kudiyiruppu property is declassified from its category after an order of the Authorised Officer, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts will revive. Until then if a civil court entertains any claim for possession in respect of the Kudiyiruppu property and passes any decree to that effect, it is no doubt a nullity. It is immaterial whether the Kudiyiruppudar has been a party to the suit or not or whether he contested the suit or remained exparte. So long as an agriculturist/agricultural labourer holds a Kudiyiruppu patta granted to him as per Act 40 of 1971, he has a statutory right to enjoy the property free from any encumbrance or risk of eviction. It is immaterial whether the Kudiyiruppudar has been a party to the suit or not or whether he contested the suit or remained exparte. So long as an agriculturist/agricultural labourer holds a Kudiyiruppu patta granted to him as per Act 40 of 1971, he has a statutory right to enjoy the property free from any encumbrance or risk of eviction. Even without patta, if a person is in occupation of the Kudiyiruppu property in his capacity as an agriculturist/agriculturist labourer, he is entitled to the protection from eviction under sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act 1961. So the default of a Kudiyirupputhar to contest a suit filed in respect of the Kudiuiruppu property in violation of sec.23, will not disentitle him from getting the benefits of the Kudiyiruppu Acts. 18.1 Since the status of the property as Kudiyiruppu and the status of the occupant as Kudiyirupputhar is a continuing one and the cause of action also continues, no limitation will apply to file a suit to declare such decrees as a nullity. So the Civil Courts cannot pass any decree for possession in favour of any interested person. But the civil courts can pass a decree for apportionment of compensation in respect of the Kudiyiruppu properties, on reference under sec. 9(2) of the Act 40 of 1971. 18.2 The Kudiyiruppu legislations have been brought with an avowed object that poor agriculturists should not become homeless and their small allied agricultural activities surrounding their home, which help them to earn their livelihood, remain intact. In an agricultural country like India, such economic security measures would form part of the Welfare State Policy. Hence no act of parties or decree of court should render the agriculturists homeless. This is more so where such welfare legislative schemes bar the very jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Safeguard against abuse of Courts 19. Before sealing the deal, this Court needs to clarify a situation where a person might abuse the process of the court by falsely pleading that a suit property is Kudiyiruppu and he is a Kudiyirupputhar. If a Civil Court is barred from exercising its jurisdiction for the very reason that a party to a suit utters a word Kudiyiruppu without any substance, there is every likelihood that the process of the Court will be abused and the proceedings will be stumbled. If a Civil Court is barred from exercising its jurisdiction for the very reason that a party to a suit utters a word Kudiyiruppu without any substance, there is every likelihood that the process of the Court will be abused and the proceedings will be stumbled. In such situations, an order to cause the production of the Kudiyiruppu patta if available or order to summon to the concerned Authority to give a clarification as to the reasonableness of such pleadings, will be sufficient to decide whether the court can continue to try the suit or not. Again it is imperative to impress that such an exercise undertaken by the civil court is to ascertain whether there is any fundamental reason for raising such a plea and hence to record a primafacie finding as to whether the property is a Kudiyiruppu or whether the occupant is an agriculturist or not. Answers to the reference: 20. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the question referred to us on the following terms. Question: Whether a decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of properties alleged to be kudiyiruppu is a nullity or whether the Civil Court has primafacie jurisdiction to pass a decree under the Kudiyiruppu Act? Answers (i) The question whether an agriculturist or agricultural labourer is in possession of kudiyiruppu has to be necessarily decided under sec.4 of the Act by the Authorised Officer. (ii) A conjoint reading of sec.4 and sec.23 of the Act indicates that if an agriculturist or agriculturist labourer raises a dispute that he is in possession of kudiyiruppu on the relevant date for the purpose of getting kudiyiruppu patta, he has to approach the Authrised Officer concerned for a decision on that point and can not go before a Civil Court. (iii) The question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court has to be decided on the basis of the averments in the plaint. (iv) The Civil Court is not barred from considering as to whether one of the parties claiming protection under the Act has any primafacie proof to substantiate his claim or not. (v) A decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of properties alleged to be kudiyiruppu but without conclusive proof can not be a nullity. (iv) The Civil Court is not barred from considering as to whether one of the parties claiming protection under the Act has any primafacie proof to substantiate his claim or not. (v) A decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of properties alleged to be kudiyiruppu but without conclusive proof can not be a nullity. Or in other words, (i) A decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of properties which the defendant alleges that it is a kudiyiruppu and proves to be so, is a nullity. (ii) A decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of properties which the defendant alleges that it is kudiyiruppu but fails to prove so, is not a nullity. (vi) Mere allegation that the property is a kudiyiruppu will not take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court unless it is substantiated. Because no one should be allowed to misuse the statutory provisions and abuse the process of the Courts. Unless the defendant establishes the applicability of the Act, the Civil Court will not loose its jurisdiction. (vii) If a suit is filed by a Kudiyirupputhar for a relief of declaration of title and Injunction or for recovery of possession on the basis of his valid kudiyiruppu patta, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain it, is not barred. (viii) The bar under sec.23 of the Act would operate only when a Court ventures to try a suit even after noticing that there is prima facie proof that the defendant is a kudiyirupputhar. (ix) Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not barred to entertain a suit to declare that the decree for declaration and recovery of possession passed in respect of kudiyiruppu land is a nullity. Since the status of the site as ‘kudiyiruppu’ and the status of the occupant as ‘kudiyirupputhar’ is a continuing one, the cause of action continues and hence no limitation is applicable to such suits. (x) Ex-parte decrees passed in respect of properties alleged to be 'Kudiyiruppu' without ascertaining its status with the relevant records from the Revenue Department by invoking the powers of court u/s 165 of the Evidence Act and without a speaking order as to the status of Kudiyiruppu is also nullity. 21. (x) Ex-parte decrees passed in respect of properties alleged to be 'Kudiyiruppu' without ascertaining its status with the relevant records from the Revenue Department by invoking the powers of court u/s 165 of the Evidence Act and without a speaking order as to the status of Kudiyiruppu is also nullity. 21. The answers given to the point of reference made in this case is applicable to the incidental reference arose in S.A,No.912 of 1987, as to whether the Civil Courts have prima facie jurisdiction to pass a decree under the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976 and which remained inconclusive. 22. Before parting, since the Kudiyiruppu patta confers title on the occupant, we suggest to the State Government to take steps to bring suitable amendments to the Registration Act in order to register the conferments /cancellations of Kudiyiruppu pattas of the Occupants of Kudiyiruppu with stamp duty exemption. This will make those conferments/cancellations reflected in the Encumbrance Certificates and save the interest of the bonafide purchasers who might innocently purchase the Kudiyiruppu sites from the original owners/ legal heirs/assignees and then knock the doors of civil court. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered to be placed before the Single Bench in order to dispose the same in the light of the answers given to the point of reference.