Title over property proved by appellant

J. KANAKARAJ, J.:

1. This Special Tribunal Appeal has had a chequered career. The appeal also illustrates the different between the proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act and proceedings before the civil court. We will first set out the facts before we refer to the question of law relating to the precedence to be given to the judgment of civil court over the judgment of the Revenue court, according to the circumstances of the case.

2. Town Survey Nos. 1756, 1757, 1758 and 1760 in ward No.2, Kancheepuram Town originally comprised in T.D. No. 1152 were inam lands. The inam character of the lands stood abolished with effect from 15.2.1965, by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act XXX of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The settlement Tahsildar took up suo motu enquiry in his proceedings S.R.2880/ A.C.T./K.P.M., dated 13.6.1968 granted ground rent patta under Sec. 13(1) of the said Act 30 of 1963 in favour of several persons. In respect of T.S.No. 1758/ 2 with which we are concerned, he gave patta in favour of the Kancheepuram Co-operative Society, Kancheepuram. As against this grant of patta to the society in respect of T.S.No. 1758/2, only the appellant before us namely Jothimani filed an appeal before the tribunal inC.M.A.No.21 of 1969. No doubt, the respondents got themselves impleaded in the above appeal, as per orders in I.A.No.136 of 1969 dated 1.2.1973. At this juncture, one important turn of event relates to the filing of the suit by the appel-lant in the District Munsifs Court, Kancheepuram in O.S.No.823 of 1968 seeking a declaration of title to the very same property and for an injunction against the respondent herein. The suit was decreed on 13.4.1971. An appeal against the said decree was allowed in A.S.No.98 of 1971 on 30.8.1973. A further appeal to this Court in S.A.No.81 of 1974 was again allowed on 3.9.1976 subject to certain conditions. The High Court upheld the order of the District Munsif relating to the title, but made it subject to the proceedings under Act 30 of 1963. In other words, if either party was in a position to get patta under Act 30 of 1963, he was to be declared as the owner of the property. It is under these circumstances that C.M.A.No.21 of 1969 came for final disposal and the tribunal by an order dated 30.11.1976 remanded, back to the Assistant Settlement Officer. It is seen that the order of remand was passed at the request of both the parties. Thereafter, a series of proceedings which do not have any relevance to the case, happened. But all the same, we will advert to the facts seriatim. By an order dated 12.5.1978, the Assistant Settlement Officer, on remand, granted patta in favour of the respondent. On revision, the settlement officer again remanded the case back to the Assistant Settlement Officer. Again the Assistant Settlement Officer granted patta to the respondent on 17.4.1979. Again the appellant herein filed a revision petition and succeeded and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer. It is on such a remand that the present order, which is the subject-matter of the S.T.Appeal came to be passed on 9.8.1982. In and by this proceedings, The Assistant Settlement Officer granted patta in favour of the respondent. The appellant promptly filed an appeal to the tribunal in C.M.A.No.86 of 1982 and the appeal came to be dismissed on 30.4.1983. Against the said order in C.M.A.No.86 of 1982, the present S.T.A. came to be filed and it so happens that a Division Bench of this Court on 10.8.1988 allowed the appeal on the short ground that the appellant had succeeded in S.A.No.81 of 1974. The Division Bench then purported to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam , A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 794; (1985)4 S.C.C. 10: (1985)1 A.P.L.J. (S.C.) 1 with State of Tamil Nadu v. K.L.M. Ramamurthy and others and held th