Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 2820
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM
Saraswathi Ammal
Versus
Ponnammal and another
S.A. No. 1106 of 1997 and C.M.P. No. 9190 of 1999
Decided on: 23-12-1999
M/s. Meenakshi Sundaram for Mr. R. Singaravelan, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. N.P.K. Menon, Advocate for Respondents.
A civil court has jurisdiction to review the validity of revenue records and to grant relief to the plaintiff if the records were obtained fraudulently or in violation of due process.
Headnote:
TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL LANDS (RECORD OF TENANCY RIGHTS) ACT, 1969 - SECTION 3 - TENANCY RIGHTS - BURDEN OF PROOF - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - TENANT'S CLAIM - ORAL LEASE - VALIDITY - REQUIREMENTS - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - FRAUD - REVENUE RECORDS - MANIPULATION - CIVIL COURT'S POWER TO REVIEW - PUBLIC INTEREST - ABUSE OF PROCESS - HIGH COURT'S JURISDICTION - SCOPE - FACTUAL FINDINGS - INTERFERENCE - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the legal heir of the owner of the suit property, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, her sister-in-law and her son, alleging that they had taken possession of the property and obstructed her from irrigating the land. The defendants claimed to be cultivating tenants under an oral lease from the plaintiff's mother, the owner of the property. The trial court granted the injunction, but the appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the defendants had established possession of the property and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to grant the injunction due to the entry of the first defendant's name as a cultivating tenant in the Record of Tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the defendants had failed to establish their claim of tenancy. The oral lease was not supported by any independent evidence, and the revenue records relied upon by the defendants were obtained fraudulently and in violation of due process. The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to review the validity of the revenue records and to grant relief to the plaintiff, as the defendants had abused the process of law and manipulated the revenue records to deprive the plaintiff of her property.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants had established their claim of tenancy under an oral lease. 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to grant the injunction in light of the entry of the first defendant's name as a cultivating tenant in the Record of Tenancy. 3. Whether the revenue records relied upon by the defendants were obtained fraudulently and in violation of due process.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish the existence of a valid tenancy. In the present case, the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of an oral lease. The evidence was inconsistent and contradictory, and there was no independent evidence to corroborate the defendants' testimony. 2. The civil court has jurisdiction to review the validity of revenue records and to grant relief to the plaintiff if the records were obtained fraudulently or in violation of due process. In the present case, the revenue records relied upon by the defendants were obtained fraudulently and in violation of due process. The Tahsildar who issued the order recognizing the first defendant as a cultivating tenant failed to provide proper notice to the plaintiff and failed to conduct a proper inquiry. 3. The abuse of process and manipulation of revenue records by the defendants constituted a fraud on the court and a violation of public interest. The High Court has the jurisdiction and the duty to intervene in such cases to prevent injustice and to protect the rights of the aggrieved party.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the findings of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint to seek recovery of possession of the suit property, and the defendants were allowed to file an additional written statement. The trial court was directed to complete the proceedings and dispose of the suit within a specified time frame.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchi in A.S. No. 111 of 1986 in reversing that of learned District Munsif, Musiri in O.S. No. 1411 of 1982. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above appeal.
2. The suit was filed for a decree for permanent injunction, the plaintiff contending that the suit property originally belonged to one Chellammal, wife of Periannan, the mother of the plaintiff, who was living at Penang. She purchased it for a sum of Rs. 9,000 on 15.7.1960 from one Muthuswamy Pillai under registered sale deed-Ex.A-1. Chellammal was residing at Penang and the plaintiff is the only legal heir of Chellammal, living in India and the plaintiff had been entrusted with the property, to look afte r the same and to maintain proper accounts. Since then, the plaintiff was in possession and cultivating the property and paying the kist. No other person had any right or possession of the property. The first defendant was sister of the plaintiff’s husband and the second defendant was the son of the first defendant. While they have absolutely no right, title or interest over the property, since the plaintiff was a lady, the defendants were assisting the plaintiff in managing the property inclusive of paying the taxes. But the defendants, taking undue advantage of the situation, sought for the entrustment of the land for themselves to cultivate the land and as the plaintiff refused to oblige them, the defendants had adopted a hostile and challenging attitude. The defendants being influential persons, had high-handedly obstructed the plaintiff from irrigating the lands on 20.12.1982 and hence the suit.
3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, the fact that Chellammal was the owner of the property, having purchased the same on 15.7.1960, was admitted. The sale deed was negotiated and got executed when Chellammal was at Penang and the father of the defendants, one Mahamuni alone pushed through the sale on behalf of Chellammal. Chellammal continues to be at Penang and it was false to state that she had entrusted the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not take possession of the property, nor, she continued to be in possession of the property. Chellammal herself was not in possession of the property at the time of the sale as she was not in India. On the other hand, the property was negotiated only by Mahamuni, who let out the property immediately after the sale to the first defendant, being his own daughter. Mahamuni was the power agent of Chellammal and the lease was oral and the first defendant took possession of the property and since then, had been in open and continuous possession and in personal enjoyment of the suit property as a cultivating tenant. She was raising paddy and plantain crops and had also obtained loan from Cooperative Society. Therefore, as a cultivating tenant, the first defendant alone was in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is true that the first defendant is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff, but it was not correct to state that she was only helping the plaintiff in the cultivation of the property. The plaintiff never cultivated the property. It was also not correct to state that the defendants had asked for the release of the property from the plaintiff. The alleged obstruction to the irrigation of the field on 20.12.1982 was also false. It was further contended that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit, since she had no legal right to sue. She had no title or possession.
4. The trial Court, on an analysis of the pleadings and the evidence, concluded that the plaintiff was in possession of the property on the date of the suit and being the legal heir of the owner of the property, was entitled to injunction as prayed for. On appeal, however, the appellate Court held that the defendants had established possession of the property on the date of the suit and that the first defendant’s name having been
