The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of the Director of Settlement under the Pondicherry Settlement Act 1970 is not binding on the civil court in deciding the question of title, unless it falls within the matters required to be decided by the authorities under the Act.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree, dated 11. 1994 passed by the learned Prinicipal District Judge, Pondicherry in A.S.No.126 of 1993, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 111. 1993 made in O.S.No.418 of 1992 by the learned I Addl. Distict Munsif, Pondicherry.

2. The appellant herein is the Company which is a subsequent purchaser of the suit property from the plaintiffs in O.S.No.418 of 1992 on the file of the I Addl. District Munsif, Pondicherry, pending disposal of the appeal A.S.No.126 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The appellant got itself impleaded as the 7th respondent in A.S.No.126 of 1993 by order, dated 8. 1994 made in I.A.No.353 of 1994.

3. The suit in O.S.No.418 of 1992 was filed by the respondents 1 to 6 herein seeking a declaration of their title to the suit property measuring about 1 Hectare 48 are equivalent to 2 Kanies 76 Kuzhies 9/16 veesams in Cd No.15, 299/301, R.s.No.19/2 of Setharapet Village, Vilianur Commune, Pondicherry – Villinanur Sub-Registry, Pondicherry and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The suit properties originally belonged to one Boovaragamurthy who died leaving behind his four sons by name venkatraman, Subramanian, Viswanathan and Ramakrishnan. It is further averred that one of the sons, namely, Ramakrishnan died without issues and Viswanathan died leaving behind his one son by name Krishnamoorthy who also died issueless. The other son Subramaniam had died leaving behind one son by name Aswathanarayanan who had executed a will bequeathing his share in the suit property in favour of the first plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs the first plaintiff and the other heirs of Venkatraman had entered into a partition on 12. 1986 by virtue of a registered deed in and by which the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs. On the strength of the said partition deed the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since the defendants who have no right over the suit property attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs made enquiries and found that the revenue records stood in the name of the defendants 1 to 4, the plaintiffs had therefore, approached the Director of Settlements, Pondicherry and sought rectification of the revenue records and the Director by his proceedings, dated 24. 1991 bearing No.DOS/PA/2876/1991 had ordered rectification of the settlement records thereby including the name of the plaintiffs in the records. According to the Plaintiffs the defendants had attempted to interfere with their possession on 26. 1992 which forced to them to file the above suit.

5. The defendants 1 to 4 resisted the said suit contending that the suit property never belonged to the plaintiffs or their ancestors. According to the defendants, the suit properties were assigned to them by the Government of Pondicherry under the Pondicherry Land Grand Rules 1975 on 9. 1978. The defendants had further claimed that they were cultivating the suit properties and paying taxes and other charges to the Government even prior to the assignment in their favour. The defendants had also given details of the crops raised by them in the suit property.

6. On the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif framed the necessary issues and after trial decreed the suit holding that order of the Director of Settlement dated 24. 1991 cannot be called in question in the civil suit in view of the bar enacted under Section 25(2) of the Pondicherry Settlement Act 1970. The learned District Munsif was also of the view that the defendants having not questioned the order of the Director of settlements dated 24. 1991 cannot now seek to challenge the same. The learned District Munsif also came to the conclusion that the d