The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Appeals filed by the Tahsildar representing the State Government were maintainable, and the amendment of the cause title to substitute the name of the appellant as 'State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Nilgris' was allowed under the Gudalur Janmam Estates Act, 1969.

1. These Revisions are directed against the order of the Gudalur Janmam estates Abolition Tribunal and the District Judge of the Nilgris at Udhagamandalam dated 10. 2007 made in I.A. Nos.62 to 68 of 2007 in C.M.A. Nos.10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 of 1999.

2. The respondents in the said Interlocutory Applications are the petitioners. The petitioner/appellant thereon is the first respondent herein and the first respondent in that Interlocutory Application is the second respondent. The Interlocutory Applications have been filed in the above C.M.As. under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10(1), Section 151 of C.P.C. and Section 7 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 praying for permitting the first respondent herein to amend the cause title in the memorandum of Appeal. Those Applications have been ordered by the above referred Court, which is being challenged in these Revisions.

3. The short factual matrix, which is necessary for the disposal of these Revisions are set out hereunder:

The subject matter of the lands in question were previously Janmam estates owned by the Jenmis. They were transferred to the State Government and vest with it free from all encumbrances by virtue of Section 3 of the Gudalur Jenam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969. (hereinafter called as "the Act"). The petitioners claimed ryotwari patta under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act before the Assistant Settlement Officer, who is competent to grant patta. Section 12(3) of the said Act contemplates an Appeal against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. An Appeal has been preferred by the Tahsildar, Gudalur/Pandalur. Thus, the name of the appellant was described as Tahsildar. Originally, those Appeals were allowed by the Tribunal and the claimants preferred Appeals before this Court. The Appeals were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the matters were remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. While the matters were taken up for hearing an objection has been taken on the side of the claimants about the maintainability of the Appeals preferred by the Tahsildar. Thereafter, an Application has been filed to amend the cause title by removing the name of the "Tahsildar, Gudalur/Pandalur and substituting the name as State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Nilgiris. Those Applications have been allowed by the Tribunal constituted under the Act viz., the District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam and the present Revisions are directed against the said order.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the Applications for amending the cause title, which has been sworn to by the Collector of Nilgiris, it is stated that the Appeals have been preferred against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and in the Appeal memorandum, the name of the appellant has been wrongly described due to a bona fide mistake. Instead of stating the appellant as "the State of Tamil Nadu" represented by the Collector of Nilgiris it has been wrongly stated as "the Tahsildar, Gudalur/Pandalur. It is a bona fide mistake and and if the bona fide error as regards description of the appellant is not corrected, great hardship and irrepairable injury will be caused to the State.

5. In reply to the said Applications the claimants have filed counter affidavit, wherein it has been set out that the proposed amendment would alter the entire cause of action, besides it is barred by limitation. Though, even at the outset, an objection has been taken with regard to the locus standi of the Tahsildar in preferring the Appeals, the mistake has not been rectified and the State Government did not take any steps to bring on record the necessary parties. The Appeals preferred by the Tahsildar of Gudalur/Pandalur is non-est in law. It is not a mis-description and the same cannot be remedied now. Thus the counter affidavit sought for dismissal of the