Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, R.N. MANJULA, JJ.
G. Chakrapani – Appellant
Versus
Jayapal & Others – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 664 of 1998
Decided On : 25-03-2021
For the Appellant :Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel, R. Meenal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Bhagavath Krishnan, Srinath Sridevan, Advocates.
Point of law: Kudiyiruppu legislations have been brought with an avowed object that poor agriculturists should not become homeless and their small allied agricultural activities surrounding their home, which help them to earn their livelihood, remain intact. In an agricultural country like India, such economic security measures would form part of the Welfare State Policy. Hence no act of parties or decree of court should render the agriculturists homeless. This is more so where such welfare legislative schemes bar the very jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
Headnote:
Evidence Act – Section 165 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 47, 9 – Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 – Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 – Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976 – Section 23 – Jurisdiction – Civil Revision Petition placed before us under the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice pursuant to the orders of reference made by K.Raviraja Pandian.J (as he then was) in view of the same set of facts Sampath.J in S.A. made an order for reference but the said reference not decided and remain inconclusive. – Whether a decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of properties alleged to be Kudiyiruppu, is a nullity or whether the Civil Court has prima facie jurisdiction to pass a decree under the Kudiyiruppu Act
Finding of court: Court needs to clarify a situation where a person might abuse the process of the court by falsely pleading that a suit property is Kudiyiruppu and he is a Kudiyirupputhar. – If a Civil Court is barred from exercising its jurisdiction for the very reason that a party to a suit utters a word Kudiyiruppu without any substance, there is every likelihood that the process of the Court will be abused and the proceedings will be stumbled. – In such situations, an order to cause the production of the Kudiyiruppu patta if available or order to summon to the concerned Authority to give a clarification as to the reasonableness of such pleadings, will be sufficient to decide whether the court can continue to try the suit or not. – Again it is imperative to impress that such an exercise undertaken by the civil court is to ascertain whether there is any fundamental reason for raising such a plea and hence to record a primafacie finding as to whether the property is a Kudiyiruppu or whether the occupant is an agriculturist or not. – Answers given to the point of reference made in this case is applicable to the incidental reference arose in S.A , as to whether the Civil Courts have prima facie jurisdiction to pass a decree under the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976 and which remained inconclusive. – Since the Kudiyiruppu patta confers title on the occupant, court suggest to the State Government to take steps to bring suitable amendments to the Registration Act in order to register the conferments /cancellations of Kudiyiruppu pattas of the Occupants of Kudiyiruppu with stamp duty exemption. – This will make those conferments/cancellations reflected in the Encumbrance Certificates and save the interest of the bonafide purchasers who might innocently purchase the Kudiyiruppu sites from the original owners/ legal heirs/assignees and then knock the doors of civil court.
Result: Order Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
R.N. MANJULA, J.
1. The above Civil Revision Petition placed before us under the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice pursuant to the orders of reference made by K.Raviraja Pandian.J (as he then was) dated 27.01.2003 in view of the same set of facts Sampath.J in S.A.No.912/1987 made an order for reference dated 01.07.1999, but the said reference not decided and remain inconclusive.
The question of law made in this Civil Revision Petition is
Whether a decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of properties alleged to be Kudiyiruppu, is a nullity or whether the Civil Court has prima facie jurisdiction to pass a decree under the Kudiyiruppu Act?
2. The point of reference made by Sampath.J in S.A.No.912/1987 in the order of reference 01.07.1999 was as to Whether the Civil Courts have got jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976, when the authorities under the said Act, seized of the matter in Second Appeal No.912 of 1987. The Division Bench before whom the reference made in S.A.No.912/1987 was placed under the order of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, had observed that the question of reference would not arise to the facts of that case and disposed the second appeal itself by dismissing it on 12.03.2001.
3. Now the Hon'ble Chief Justice has observed that the earlier reference as to whether the Civil Courts have prima facie jurisdiction to pass a decree under the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976, not decided and given orders to place the present reference made in this Civil Revision Petition before this bench for answering the question posed by the Single Judge in the order of reference dated 27.01.2003.
The short facts of the case where from this reference is as under:
4. The deceased first respondent of this Revision Petition has filed a suit in O.S.No.647 of 1983 against the father of the Revision Petitioner Govindasamy, for a relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The said Govindasamy who was a defendant therein has raised a defence that he has title over the suit property as a Kudiyiruppudar. Thereafter he remained exparte and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 21.06.1988. A petition filed in I.A.No.2382/1989 to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed and the CRP filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.2283/1989 was also dismissed. The respondent filed Execution Petition for executing the decree obtained in O.S.No.647 of 1983. During the pendency of the Execution Petition, Govindasamy died. The son of Govindasamy who is the petitioner herein, has filed a claim petition under Section 47 C.P.C in E.A.No.663 of 1993. While filing the said claim petition, the claim petitioner has produced the Kudiyiruppu assignment given to his father Govindasamy and that has been marked as Ex.A1. He claimed that the Trial Court omitted to note that the jurisdiction to decide on the Kudiyiruppu right has been barred u/s 23 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership Act) (Act 40 of 1971) and hence the decree passed by the Civil Court is a nullity. The claim petition in E.A.No.663 of 1993 was dismissed by the Executing Court for the reason that the objection as to Jurisdiction ought to have been raised in the suit itself and Govindasamy having remained ex-parte, the petitioner cannot raise a claim now before the Executing Court. And that after the patta is conferred, the Civil Court has jurisdiction. And having failed to produce Ex.A1 – patta before the trial Court, it cannot be raised before the Execution Court and claimed that the decree of the trial Court is a nullity. Further the claim of the Petitioner is barred by limitation.
4.1 When the petitioner claims that the suit property is a Kudiyiruppu for which patta has been conferred on his deceased father Govindasamy, the deceased first respondent claimed title to the suit property through purchase. Though the pleadings of the deceased first respondent b
