Findings given by Civil Court binding on the authorities under the Act.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act X of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant under the Act. The lands belong to a trust. It is stated that respondents 4 to 8 are the trustees. Respondents 9 to 12 claim themselves to be alienees of the lands in question. The lands were originally demised by way of lease to one Kuttianna Gounder, who is no more. According to the petitioner, he being the son of the said Kuttianna Gounder continued to be in possession of the lands as the cultivating tenant and hence he must be recorded as such under the Act. The third-respondent did not countenance this plea of the petitioner. The order of the third-respondent is dated 6.8.1979. Anterior to the order of the third-respondent, the petitioner was obliged to move the civil Court in O.S.No. 222 of 1977 on the file the District Munsif, Karur, against respondents 9 to 12 to ask for the relief of injunction to maintain his possession as a cultivating tenant. That suit, in spite of contest by respondents 9 to 12 herein the defendants in that suit, was decreed on 22-6-1978. As against the order of the third-respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. Before the second respondent, copies of the proceedings in the civil suit were admitted as additional evidence. It has to be noted that in O.S.No. 222 of 1977, the question as to whether the petitioner herein, the plaintiff in the suit was "in possession as a cultivating tenant was incidentally gone into and the answer thereto was given in his favour. That decision in the suit, as notified above, was rendered anterior to the order of the third-respondent. On the overall assessment of the materials placed in the case on the relevant question as to character of the possession of the petitioner, the second-respondent by order dated 31-1-1980, set aside the order of the third-respondent and directed that the name of the petitioner should be recorded as a tenant under the Act. There was a revision by respondents 4 to 12 to the first-respondent and the first-respondent expressing the view that the decision in the civil suit cannot be conclusive proof of the tenancy status and the tenancy status for the purpose of the Act should be determined only by the authorities under the Act, chose to set aside the order of the second-respondent and restored the order of the third respondent. In this Writ Petition, the order of the first-respondent dated 9-4-1980 is being put in issue.

2. It must be stated here that the decision of the first Court in civil litigation in O.S.No. 222 of 1977 was confirmed on appeal by the Sub-Court, Karur, in A.S.No. 107 of 1978 on 21-8-1980. The judgment and decree in A.S.No. 107 of 1978 were challenged in SA.No. 11.23 of 19811 raising the point that the civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit for injunction wherein the question as to whether a person is in possession as a cultivating tenant is involved. That second appeal Kamppanna Gounder v. Ammaiappan (1988) 1 M.L.J. 376 : (1988) 1 L.W. 194, has been dismissed by me today holding that the civil Court does not lack jurisdiction to go into the question incidentally as to whether a person is in possession as a cultivating tenant in a suit for injunction to protect such possession and Section 16A of the Act does not bar such a suit.

3. G. Subramaniam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the status of a tenant claimed by the petitioner can certainly be gone into and adjudicated upon by the civil court as an incidental issue, if not a jurisdictional one, for the purpose of granting the relief of injunction to protect possession and if such a decision has been rendered by the civil court anterior to the decision by the authorities under the Act, the latter must certainly take note of that and they cannot ignore the same, as done by the first respondent. In this conn