JUDGMENT :

N. Seshasayee, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 70 of 2013 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Kovilpatti, who having lost his suit successively, first before the trial Court and then before the first appellate court in A.S. No. 10 of 2015, has approached this Court in this Second Appeal. Parties would be referred to by their respective rank before the trial court.

Pleadings

2. The nature of the suit and the manner in which the Courts below have approached it, dispense with the need for an elaborate facts-narration. The plaintiff claims title to two items of suit properties based on a settlement deed dated 15.09.1943. They are as follows:

He claims that his title to these properties has been declared in O.S. No. 114 of 1995 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Kovilpatti. Be that as it may, the revenue officials had sub-divided his properties with no notice to him, and interfered with his title to these properties. Hence, the plaintiff moved this Court in W.P. No. 32020 of 2012 in which this Court, Vide its order dated 11.11.2012, had directed the authorities to consider the representation of the plaintiff intended for the said purpose. Based on that, on 03.04.2012, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti (the third defendant) called for a report from the Tahsildhar, Kovilpatti (the fourth defendant), to which the latter has responded with his report. According to this report, the plaintiff's properties have been sub-divided without an enquiry. In spite of this report, the third defendant had confirmed the earlier sub-division made. Therefore, after issuing a notice under Section 80 CPC, the suit is laid.

2.1. The principal prayer which the plaintiff has sought is for a declaration that the revenue sub-division of the aforesaid properties in the plaint without issuing notice to him is null and void.

3. There are four defendants to the suit. The first defendant is the State of Tamil Nadu and others are its revenue officials. However, none among the defendants chose to defend the allegation of the plaintiff that he was not heard before his properties were sub-divided.

Approach of the trial court and the first appellate court:

4. Invoking Sec. 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, (hereinafter would be referred to as the Act) both the trial court as well as the first appellate court have non-suited the plaintiff. This provision bars civil suit as "against the Government or any Officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have a entry made in the Patta Pass Book that is maintained under this Act or to have any entry omitted or amended". This decree is now under challenge in this case.

The Second Appeal

5. The second appeal is admitted for considering the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit for declaration to declare the sub-divisions by the Respondents as null and void under chapter VI of the specific Relief Act by quoting provision of Sec. 14 of Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act?

2. When the Title of the plaintiff to the suit property was already decided in O.S. 114/95 and the present suit for declaratory reliefs, to declare the sub-divisions of the suit property by the Respondents herein are null & void, whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the same on Jurisdiction without deciding the same on merits?"

The Prelude:

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side. The solitary question involved in this case revolves around the justifiability of applying Sec. 14 of the Act to non-suit the plaintiff. It may have to be recalled that while the plaintiff's prayer relates to the unilateral reve