The findings of the Civil Court in a suit for injunction are relevant in proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1968, and the authorities functioning under the Act do not have exclusive jurisdiction to decide about the rights of parties claimed under the Act.

RAJU, J.

The above appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge dated 9-3-1988 whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to quash the order of the first respondent dated 12-4-1980 came to be dismissed.

2. The appellant filed an application before the third respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder to get himself recorded as a cultivating tenant in respect of an estent of 4.83 acres of land belonging to the fourth respondent. By an order dated 5-5-1975 the third respondent ordered to register the name of the appellant as the cultivating tenant, which on appeal by the fourth respondent before the second respondent came to be set aside by order dated 24-12-1975. The appellate authority, while setting aside the order of the third respondent, remitted the matter back to the third respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal.

3. In the mean time, the fourth respondent filed O. S. No. 325 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam against the appellant praying for permanent injunction contending that the appellant who was merely a pannai agent as evidenced by a specific agreement entered into between the parties and that even the said status has been subsequently terminated. The appellant contested the suit, and ultimately by a judgment and decree dated 25-11-1975 the trial Court held that the appellant was not a cultivating tenant and was merely a pannai agent and his services as such were also terminated and factually the fourth respondent was in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit. The judgment of the trial Court was also confirmed in A.S. No. 18 of 1976 filed by the appellant before us by judgment and decree dated 2-3-1977 by the Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The said proceedings became final between parties once they are not challenged further.

4. While matters stood thus, when the third respondent took up the remanded proceedings for consideration, the judgments of the Civil Court were pressed into service by the fourth respondent to contend that the appellant was merely a pannai agent. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 31-8-1978 came to the conclusion that the appellant was the actual cultivator of the lands and directed his name to be recorded as a cultivating tenant. While doing so, the third respondent stated in the very order that the judgments of the Civil Court are not binding on him, and, therefore, they need not be considered. On appeal by the fourth respondent, the appellate authority failed to refer to the judgments of the Civil Court, and in a summary order dated 12-2-1979 rejected the appeal. Thereupon the fourth respondent filed a revision before the first respondent and by an order dated 19-4-1980 the revisional authority dealt with the matter in considerable detail taking into account the judgments of the Civil Court as well as other materials made available by the appellant before the authorities and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellant was merely a pannai agent not doing any field work and that even such a status had been put an end to properly and the orders of the authorities below were set aside. It is the said order of the revisional authority that has been called in question by the appellant in the writ petition before this Court.

5. The learned single Judge declined to interfere with the order of the revisional authority on the ground that it was a well considered order taking into account all relevant materials on record and that the findings of respondents 2 and 3 are not supported by any independent witness or material. Aggrieved, the above writ appeal has been filed.

6. Mr. N. Ganapathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the orders of the Civil Court are not binding upon the authorities functioning under the Act, that the authorities functioning under the Act have exclusive jurisdiction to