SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Mad) 16

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANGAMANI
Arappa Gounder
Versus
Chithan and others
S.A.Nos.880 of 1983, 881 of 1981 and W.P.4896 of 1983
Decided On : 08-01-1993

Advocates:
K.Chandramouli, Senior Counsel, for Mls. R. Muthukumaraswamy and R.Thangavelu, for Appellant. V. Narayanaswami, for S.Radhakrishnan, for Respondent No.2.

No interference by High Court is requied with the orders passed by Appellate as well as Revisional authorities.

Headnote:Constitution of India (1950), Art.226 - Exercise of jurisdiction-Well considered orders passed by Appellate as well as Revisional ahturities under Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands (Records of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969-Finding based on question of fact-Held, orders not vitiated by any apparent errors no interference by High Court is required.

       

Judgment :

One Arappa Gounder, the appellant in both the second appeals and the petitioner in W.P.No.4896 of 1983 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.484 of 1971 and O.S.No.108 of 1975 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge of Erode. While the subject matter of dispute in the earlier suit is the southern A.C.3.02 1/2 in S.F.No.268 and the southern A.C.6121/2 in S.F.No.269, the disputed property in the next action is an extent of A.C.3.04 1/2 in the northern most part of S.F.Nos.268 and 269 of Sankarapalayam village, Bhavani Taluk. The entire extent which is stated to be of A.C.I 2.19 1/2 originally belonged to four brothers viz. Maran,. Raman, Lakshmanan and Chinna Maran who are the sons of one Kuppan. There was no partition of this property among the brothers but each one was enjoying a specific portion for the sake of convenience. Kuppan died in the year 1963. On the basis of a promissory note executed by him, one Than-davan filed O.S.No.114 of 1966 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Erode and obtained a decree on 14. 1967 against the three sons Maran, Raman and Chinna Maran and the legal representatives of the last son Lakshmanan, who was dead by then. In execution of the said decree, Than-davan attached the entire properties in E.P.No.7 of 1968and brought them for sale in court auction. The second respondent in S.A.No.880 of 1981, the sole respondent in S.A.No.881 of 1981 and first respondent in W.P.No.4896 of 1983 Jayakrishnan purchased them in court auction held on 21. 1970. The sale was confirmed on 23. 1970.

.2. In the meanwhile, on 6. 1967 Raman executed Ex.A-9 sale deed in favour of Chithan, the first respondent in S.A.No.880of 1981 in respect of his one-fourth share in the suit items. The appellant Arappa Gounder claims that he is in enjoyment of this one-fourth share of Chithan as his lessee. He further alleges that on 14. 1967, he took on lease for one year the other three shares of Maran, Lakshmanan and Chinnamaran under Ex.A-1 unregistered lease deed. He continues to be in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant by renewing the lease every year. Exs. A-2, A-3, and A-26 are the subsequent unregistered lease deeds dated 14. 1968,14. 1969 and 19. 1970 respectively. The appellant adds that he has been recorded as a tenant of the entire suit properties under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Records of Tenancy Regulations) Act, 1969. Alleging that his enjoyment of the properties was sought to be disturbed by respondents 1 and 2 the appellant instituted the two suits for a declaration that he is a cultivating tenant with a right to be in possession of the suit properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the lands so long as he continued as a cultivating tenant. In the alternative, he claimed for recovery of possession also.

3. The respondent/auction purchaser resisted the actions contending that the appellant never took the suit properties on lease either from the first respondent Chithan the vendee under Ex.A-9 or from the descendants of Kuppan. The vendee Chithan is colluding with the appellant. This respondent did not receive any notice from the Tenancy Record Officer and the orders passed under the Record of Tenancy Rights Act are not binding on him. The suits have been engineered only for the purpose of defeating the genuine rights of the court auction purchaser. After purchase, he obtained symbolical possession in respect of the undivided half share in S.F.No.268 on 29. 1970 as evidenced by Ex.B-1 the possession receipt. He took actual possession of the remaining extent of A.C.8.17 through court as per Ex.B-2 on 10. 1971 in E.ANo.798 of 1971. Thereafter the appellant filed E.A.No.881 of 1971 on 210. 1971 praying the court not to record delivery slating that he was in possession of the properties as a lessee. On 11. 1975 this E.A. was dismissed and delivery was recorded without prejudice to the suit. While Ex. A-32 is t


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top