Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2275 (MAD)

Kandasamy v. Ammasai Gounder (Deceased)

2022-07-22

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Court, Tiruppur dated 19.03.1996 and made in A.S.No. 23 of 1992 confirming the decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, dated 25.02.1992 made in O.S.No. 713 of 1984. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Court, Tiruppur dated 19.03.1996 and made in A.S.No. 24 of 1992 confirming the decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, dated 25.02.1992 made in O.S.No. 301 of 1988.) Commno Judgment: 1. The plaintiff, Kandasamy, in O.S. No. 713 of 1984, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 773 of 1997. 2. O.S. No. 713 of 1984 had been filed by P. Ganapathy Gounder, who died pending the suit, and whose son, Kandasamy was brought on record, against Ammasai Gounder, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of the lands totally measuring 31.05 acres in one block in S.F. Nos. 529, 546, 547, 548 and 549 in Eattiveerampalayam Cusbha of Appiyapalayam Group in Tiruppur, in the then Coimbatore District. 3. The 3rd and 4th defendants, Kandasamy and Muruganathan, both brothers, in O.S. No. 301 of 1988, also on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 774 of 1997. 4. O.S. No. 301 of 1988 had been filed by three brothers, Kandasamy, Duraisamy and Vadivelu against Ammasai Gounder, Kandasamy and Muruganathan, restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the same suit schedule lands. 5. Since the issue involved in both the suits were with respect to recognizing possession based on rival claims as cultivating tenants over the same lands, joint trial was conducted and common judgment was delivered on 25.02.1992, dismissing O.S. No. 713 of 1984 and decreeing 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 713 of 984 / 3rd and 4th defendants in O.S. No. 301 of 1988 filed A,S, Nos. 23 and 24 of 1992 before the Sub Court Tiruppur. By common judgment dated 19.03.1996, both the appeal suits were dismissed. 7. Thereafter, the unsuccessful appellants filed the present two second appeals. 8. 23 and 24 of 1992 before the Sub Court Tiruppur. By common judgment dated 19.03.1996, both the appeal suits were dismissed. 7. Thereafter, the unsuccessful appellants filed the present two second appeals. 8. The second appeals had been admitted on the following substantial question of law “Whether the courts below are correct in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein and by the respondent herein against him merely relying on Ex. B-6 which is not binding the appellant as he is not a party to it?” 9. Pending the second appeals, the respondent in S.A. No. 713 of 1997, Ammasai Gounder died and his legal representatives were brought 7 on record as 2nd to 4th respondents. 10. The said Ammasai Gounder was the 3rd respondent in S.A. No. 714 of 1997, and his legal representatives were brought on record as 8th to 10th respondents. The 1st respondent, Duraisamy also died and his legal representatives were brought on record as 11th and 12th respondents. O.S. No. 713 of 1984 (District Munsif Court, Tiruppur): 11. The plaintiff P. Ganapathy Gounder claimed that the suit lands to one Fakruddin Sahib and that the plaintiff was cultivating the lands as tenant for the past 50 years. The tenancy continued under his son Sultan. He was also paying Government kist. He further claimed tht the defendant, Ammasai Gounder, a stranger, claimed to be owner and attempted to trespass into the lands. The plaintiff also claimed tht he had applied to the Tenancy Officer cum Tahshildar, Tiruppur to record his name in the tenancy records. Seeking protection of possession from the defendant, the suit had been filed for permanent injunction. 12. In the written statement, the defendant claimed to be the brother in law of the plaintiff and not a stranger. He claimed to have purchased 67/112 share in the suit lands and further claimed to be in lawful possession. He further stated that the brother of the plaintiff, by name Ramasamy Gounder was the actual cultivating tenant. He claimed that the plaintiff was in unlawful possession, and therefore urged that the suit should be dismissed. O.S. No. 301 of 1988 (District Munsif Court, Tiruppur): 13. This suit had been filed by sons of Ramasamy Gounder, the brother of the plaintiff in O.S. No.713 of 1984. He claimed that the plaintiff was in unlawful possession, and therefore urged that the suit should be dismissed. O.S. No. 301 of 1988 (District Munsif Court, Tiruppur): 13. This suit had been filed by sons of Ramasamy Gounder, the brother of the plaintiff in O.S. No.713 of 1984. The suit had been filed against Ammasai Gounder and also against Kandasamy and Muruganathan, the sons of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 713 of 1984. The plaintiffs claimed that it was their father, Ramasamy Gounder who was cultivating the lands under Fakrudin Sahib and later under his son, Sultan. The plaintiffs also claimed that thye had filed an application to record their names as cultivating tenants in the land records, and they further stated that their names were actually recorded. They claimed to be in lawful possession. Complaining that the defendants were interfering with peaceful possession, the suit was filed for permanent injunction to protect possession. 14. The 3rd and 4th defendants, Kandasamy and Muruganathan, sons of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 713 of 1984 filed a written statement denying and disputing the claims of the plaintiffs. They claimed that their father, Ganapathy Gounder, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 713 of 1984 was in lawful possession of the suit lands. He had filed an application to recognize him as a cultivating tenant. The 1st defendant, Ammasai Gounder, however contested that application. It was claimed that the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant were inimical to these defendants. It was therefore prayed that the suit should be dismissed. 15. The District Munsif, Tiruppur, conducted joint trial of both the suits. The issues in both the suits were whether the respective plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction sought by them over the same lands. The suit in O.S. No. 713 of 1984 was taken to be lead suit and the plaintiffs therein were directed to lead evidence. 16. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 713 of 1984, Kandasamy, was examined as P.W.1 and another witness, Sivasamy was examined as P.W.2. The 1st defendant, Ammasai Gounder was examined as D.W.1, the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 301 of 1988, Kandasamy was exmined as D.W.2 and another witness, Arunachala Gounder was examined as D.W.3. The plaintiffs marked Exs. A1 to A12. Exs. A2 to A8 were kist receipts and Ex. A10, dated 10.12.1990 were the proceedings of the Tahshildar cum Land Officer. The 1st defendant, Ammasai Gounder was examined as D.W.1, the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 301 of 1988, Kandasamy was exmined as D.W.2 and another witness, Arunachala Gounder was examined as D.W.3. The plaintiffs marked Exs. A1 to A12. Exs. A2 to A8 were kist receipts and Ex. A10, dated 10.12.1990 were the proceedings of the Tahshildar cum Land Officer. The defendants marked Exs. B1 to B20. Exs. B1 to B4 were the sale deeds in favour of Ammasai Gounder. Ex. B5 was a copy of the patta and Ex. B6 was the proceedings of the Tahshildar cum Land Officer dated 21.05.1984 Exs. B7 to B20 were kist receipts. 17. The District Munsif, Tiruppur, in a well considered judgment dated 25.02.1992 proceeded to analyse the oral and documentary evidence produced. The suit was with respect to vacant agricultural land. Both he plaintiffs claimed that they were cultivating the lands. The decision naturally revolved around the documentary evidence produced. 18. It was observed that the 1st defendant, Ammasai Gounder proved title by producing Exs. B1 to B4, sale deeds dated 13.07.1967, 06.09.1967, 06.09.1967 and 29.11.1967. The truth or validity of the sale deeds could not be impinged. To further substantiate possession, Ex. B5, patta in the name of Ammasai Gounder had also been produced. The plaintiffs did not produce acceptable documents to establish that they were recognized as cultivating tenants. On the other hand, Ex. B6 had been produced, which was the copy of the proceedings dated 21.05.1984 recognising the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 301 of 1984 as cultivating tenants by the Special Tahshildar cum Land Revenue Officer. Ammasai Gounder was also a party to the said proceedings and, as land owner, he affirmed that the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 301 of 1984 alone were the cultivating tenants. 19. In view of such evidence, O.S. No. 713 of 1984 was dismissed and O.S. No. 301 of 1984 was dismissed against the 3rd and 4th defendants, while retaining the rights of the landowner, the 1st defendant, Ammasai Gounder. A.S. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1992 (Sub Court, Tiruppur): 20. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 713 of 1984 whose suit was dismissed and against whom injunction was granted in O.S. No. 301 of 1988, filed the aforementioned two appeal suits. 21. By judgment dated 19.03.1996, the learned Sub Judge again reappraised the evidence on record. A.S. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1992 (Sub Court, Tiruppur): 20. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 713 of 1984 whose suit was dismissed and against whom injunction was granted in O.S. No. 301 of 1988, filed the aforementioned two appeal suits. 21. By judgment dated 19.03.1996, the learned Sub Judge again reappraised the evidence on record. It was observed that the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 713 of 1984 had laid their claim of possession on the basis of oral permission to cultivate. This was weighed against Ex. B6, proceedings recognizing by the competent authorities, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 301 of 1988 as the cultivating tenants. The title and controlling possession of Ammasai Gounder had also been established by production of Exs. B1 to B4, sale deeds and Ex. B5, patta. The learned sub Judge opined that he had no other option but to affirm the decrees of the trial Court and proceeded to dismiss both the appeal suits. S.A. Nos. 773 and 774 of 1997: 22. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 701 of 1984, who were also the 3rd and 4th defendants in O.S. No. 301 of 1988, then preferred the present two second appeals. 23. The second appeals had been admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the courts below are correct in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein and by the respondent herein against him merely relying on Ex. B-6 which is not binding the appellant as he is not a party to it ?” 24. The facts are simple and straightforward. Ramasamy Gounder and Ganapathy Gounder were two brothers. Ammasai Gounder was their brother in law, who unfortunately had inimical issues against Ganapathy Gounder and his sons. The suit lands, measuring 31.05 acres in one block, spread over S.F. Nos. 529, 546, 547, 548 and 549 in Eattiveerampalayam Cusbha of Appiyapalayam Group in Tiruppur, in the then Coimbatore District, originally belonged to Fakruddin Sahib. 25. Ganapathy Gounder had instituted O.S. No. 713 of 1984 claiming that he was the cultivating tenant under Fakruddin Sahib and then under his son Sultan for nearly 50 years and that he had applied to the competent authorities to recognize him as a cultivating tenant, but that the defendant therein, Ammasai Gounder, whom he described as a stranger, interfered with possession, and therefore sought the relief of permanent injunction to protect possession. 26. 26. The defendant Ammasai Gounder revealed that he was actually the brother in law of Ganapathy Gounder and also asserted his rights by claiming that he had purchased a substantial portion of the lands from the co-owners who had succeeded to the holding of Fakruddin Sahib after his death. Those sale deeds were produced as Exs. B1 to B4. The sale deeds were dated 13.07.1967, 06.09.1967, 06.09.1967 and 29.11.1967. The plaintiff had not sought to challenge the validity of the sale deeds. Both the Courts below have confirmed the sale deeds. Ex. B5 was the patta in favour of Ammasi Gounder. He denied that Ganapathy Gounder or his sons were cultivating tenants. 27. The sons of Ramasamy Gounder, ther brother of Ganapathy Gounder filed O.S. No. 301 of 1988 claiming rights as cultivating tenants, and therefore also sought injunction to protect their possession. 28. In this connection, Ex. B6, surrounding which the substantial question of revolves, assuming importance. 29. Ex. B6 is the proceedings dared 12.02.1988 of the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, after holding due enquiry, holding that the sons of Ramasany Gounder, namely, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 301 of 1988, Kandasamy, Duraisamy and Vadivelu as cultivating tenants over the suit lands measuring 31.05 acres in one block, spread over S.F. Nos. 529, 546, 547, 548 and 549 in Eattiveerampalayam Cusbha of Appiyapalayam Group in Tiruppur, in the then Coimbatore District. They had filed an application u/s 4(2) of the said Act on 22.04.1987. The 1st defendant, Ammasai Gounder, the land owner was shown as the opposite party. He affirmed that they were his cultivating tenants. Accordingly, their names were recorded as cultivating tenants u/s 4(3) of the said Act. 30. The substantial question of law, is whether such recording in the absence of the plaintiffs in O.S.. 701 of 1984 can be taken as sacrosanct. Section 6 of the said Act is as follows : “ Section 6 : Appeal. Accordingly, their names were recorded as cultivating tenants u/s 4(3) of the said Act. 30. The substantial question of law, is whether such recording in the absence of the plaintiffs in O.S.. 701 of 1984 can be taken as sacrosanct. Section 6 of the said Act is as follows : “ Section 6 : Appeal. - Any person aggrieved by an order made under subsection (8) o f section 3, sub-section (3) of section 4 or sub-section (3) of section 5 may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to such authority as may be specified by the Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall, subject to the provisions of section 7, be final.” Section 16 A of the said Act is as follows : “Section 16A : Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts. - No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the record officer, the District Collector or other officer or authority empowered by or under this Act has to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.” 31. This provision had come up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Periathambi Goundan vs The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and ors. reported in (1980) 93 LW 169 : (1980) 2 Mad LJ 89 (FB) : AIR 1980 Mad 180 . 32. The Full Bench was concerned with Section 16 A, relating to ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. But they also pointed out the object of the Act. They observed “The object of the Act as well as the provisions contained in S. 3 (2) make it clear that a Record Officer or the Appellate or Revisional Authority has to determine the following matters—(1) the survey number or sub-division number, extent and local name, if any, of the land let for cultivation by a tenant; (2) the name and address of the landowner; (3) the name and address of the tenant cultivating the land. It may be prima facie stated that these are the four matters which are required to be determined by the Record Officer or the Appellate or Revisional Authority under the provisions of the Act… .Further, the very object of the Act is to provide for the preparation and maintenance of record of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural lands.” 33. It is thus seen that the entry by the Record Officer is conclusive evidence that the sons of Ramasamy Gounder are the cultivating tenants and this would further indicate that they are in lawful possession. 34. In view of the law affirmed, I hold with respect to the substantial question of law framed that the Courts below had correctly placed reliance on Ex. B6. If the appellants claim that the same is not binding on them, then they should have taken recourse to the appellate remedy and the civil court cannot be called upon to enter into a discussion on that aspect. 35. In view of the above reasons the second appeals stand dismissed with costs.