Suit filed by Cultivating tenant not maintainable.

S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. The second appeal and the writ petition are disposed of by this common judgment. The second appeal arises from O.S. No. 1042 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupattur. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1042 of 1973, filed the suit for a declaration that he was the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendants, Ponnuswamy and Gnanamoorthy from interfering with his possession as a cultivating tenant. The case of Masilamani was that the property originally belonged to one Abdul Azeez and that the latter inducted him into possession of the suit property. Thereafter, on 17th November,, 1972, Ponnuswamy and Gnanamoorthi purchased the property from Abdul Azeez and began to interfere with his rights.

2. The trial Court decreed the suit. Ponnuswamy and Gnanamoorthy, filed A.S. No. 93 of 1975 before the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. The appeal was dismissed. Thereupon, they filed S.A. No. 157 of 1981 on the file of this Court.

4. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are the appellants in the Second Appeal for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent on 6th June, 1979, holding that the petitioners have not taken possession of the land from the 4th respondent subsequent to their purchase. It may be stated that the 4th respondent had originally got himself registered as a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Act. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar, Vaniyambadi, to delete the name of the 4th respondent from the Records of Tenancy Rights registry. The petitioners raised the identical contention which they raised in O.S. No. 1042 of 1973 on the ground that after their purchase, the 4th respondent had surrendered possession of the property to the petitioners and accordingly they had taken possession of the same and have been cultivating the land since the date of surrender. The 4th respondent denied the factum of surrender and asserted that he was continuing to be in possession as a cultivating tenant.

5. The third respondent/Tahsildar accepted the case of the petitioners and ordered deletion of the name of the 4th respondent from the Record of Tenancy Rights registry. Against the said order, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Tiruppattur, the second respondent in the writ petition. The Sub-Collector dismissed the appeal. Thereupon, the 4th respondent filed a revision petition before the first respondent. District Revenue Officer, North Arcot. The District Revenue Officer by his order, dated 6th June, 1979, set aside the orders passed by the second and third respondents and allowed the revision petition before the first respondent, The District Revenue Officer held that the petitioners who are respondents before him had not proved that the 4th respondent had surrendered possession of the land and that they have personally cultivated in fasli 1383 and they continued to be in possession thereof.

6. In the second appeal, it may be mentioned that both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have concurrently found that the plea of oral surrender set up by the appellants, namely, the petitioners in the writ petition, had not been proved.

7. Mr. Muthukumaraswamy, the learned Counsel for the appellants, namely, the petitioners in the writ petition, relies upon the Full Bench decision in Periathambi Gounder v. District Revenue Officer, and argues that inasmuch as the suit was filed by the 4th respondent after the introduction of Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969, as amended by 1972, the suit itself is not maintainable. As regards the writ petition, the learned Counsel further argues that the impugned order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside as it is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.

8. I shall firs