The proviso to section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act allows a person aggrieved by an entry in the patta pass book to seek a declaration of rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act.

1. Defendants 2 to 6 in O.S.No.316 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Palladam are the revision petitioners.

2. Defendants 2 to 6/revision petitioners herein filed the above revision for rejection of the plaint. It is submitted by Mr.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and for consequential injunction restraining the revision petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and to declare that the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore dated 25.6.2007 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai dated 7.1.2009 in respect of the suit property is against law and for mandatory injunction to keep the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff.

3. According to Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioners that insofar as the first relief is concerned, the suit is maintainable but, insofar as the second relief is concerned, it is barred by section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act and therefore, the suit has to be rejected in respect of the second relief. He also submitted that as per Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order striking off any matter in pleading for reasons stated therein and as the second relief is barred by section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act, the second relief has to be struck off form the plaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon various judgments.

4. To appreciate the contention of the revision petitioners, necessary facts are to be stated. The suit property originally belonged to one Nanjappan alias Chinna Podusan and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death on 5.4.2002. The said Nanjappan died intestate on 5.4.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and one Pattusamy as his legal heir and Pattusamy also died on 19.3.2004 leaving behind plaintiffs 7 to 9 as his legal heirs. The revenue records also show that the property stands in the name of Nanjappan. The Special Tahsildar, UDR Scheme also issued separate patta in the name of Nanjappan on 19.3.1984. Defendants 1 to 5 are having land adjacent to the suit property and they have no right over the suit property. The sixth defendant, with mala fide intention of grabbing the suit property from the plaintiffs, obtained power form defendants 1 to 4 and approached the D.R.O., Coimbatore alongwith the fifth defendant to change the revenue records into their name by deleting the name of Nanjappan with the help of the Village Administrative Officer and that was also considered by the D.R.O., Coimbatore and order was passed by the D.R.O., Coimbatore granting patta in the name of defendants 5 and 6 on 25.6.2007. This order of the D.R.O was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai and the same was dismissed on 7.1.2009. In these circumstances, the suit was filed for the relief prayed for.

5. Respondents 1 to 9 were served and their names were also printed in the cause list, there was no representation for them. Respondents 10 to 12 are represented by the Special Government Pleader.

6. According to Mr.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a bar under section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act that no suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended and the second relief prayed for by the plaintiffs viz., for declaration that the order passed by the D.R.O., Coimbatore and confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai are null and void is barred under section 14 as no suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government and therefore, the second relief can