The assignment of land by revenue officials in the face of ongoing civil litigation and without notifying the contesting parties is invalid. Civil courts have jurisdiction to grant relief in such cases and the assignment does not act as res judicata.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.74 of 1983 dated 11.02.1986 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Vellore against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.9 of 1978 dated 02.04.1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.

The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.93 of 1983 dated 11.02.1986 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Vellore against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.306 of 1977 dated 02.04.1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.)Common Judgment:

1. The plaintiff/legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S.No.306 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur are the appellants in S.A.No.1489 of 1986.

2. The suit in O.S.No.306 of 1977 had been filed by the appellant/P.Annammal, who died during the pendency of the Second Appeal against two defendants viz., Krishnan and his sister Vellai Kanniammal seeking declaration of title with respect to the suit schedule property which forms part of Gramanatham S.No.233/1 at Banavaram Village at Arakonam in Vellore District, measuring East to West 58 feet and North to South 45 feet.

3. The said Annammal was the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.9 of 1978 and the defendants/legal representatives are the appellants in S.A.No.1488 of 1986. The suit in O.S.No.9 of 1978 had been filed by Vellai Kanniammal who died pending the Second Appeal, again with respect to the very same property seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. The trial in both the suits, O.S.No.306 of 1977 and O.S.No.9 of 1978 were conducted jointly and by judgment dated 02.04.1983, the District Munsif, Sholinghur, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record, decreed O.S.No.306 of 1977 and dismissed O.S.No.9 of 1978. Questioning the decree granted in O.S.No.306 of 1977, the defendants therein who are the respondents herein filed A.S.No.93 of 1983 before the Principal Sub Court, Vellore. Questioning the dismissal of O.S.No.9 of 1978, the plaintiff therein/legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed A.S.No.74 of 1983 before the Principal Sub Court, Vellore.

5. Both the First Appeals were taken up together and a common judgment was delivered by the learned Principal Sub Judge Vellore on 11.02.1986. By the said judgment, the findings of the District Munsif were held to be not correct and were set aside. This meant that O.S.No.306 of 1977 which had been decreed by the Trial Court was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and O.S.No.9 of 1978 which had been dismissed by the Trial Court was decreed by the First Appellate Court. In effect both the First Appeals were allowed.

6. Questioning the judgment and decree in both the First Appeals, the plaintiff in O.S.No.306 of 1977 filed S.A.No.1489 of 1986. She was one of the defendants in O.S.No.9 of 1978 and she filed S.A.No.1488 of 1986.

7. Pending the Second Appeals, the appellant P.Annammal died and thereafter, appellants 3 to 5 have been brought on record.

O.S.No.306 of 1977 (District Munsif Court, Sholinghur):-

8. The plaintiff P.Annammal had filed the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction to protect possession of the site which forms part of Gramanatham S.No.233/1 of Banavaram Village, Arakonam, Vellore District. She claimed that she had occupied the site 11 years prior to the institution of the suit and had put up a thatched hut and also paid house tax to the panchayat. She claimed exclusive possession and enjoyment. Further the Tashildar, Arakonam Taluk, had issued a B-memo. Alleging that the 1st defendant in the said suit, Krishnan was attempting to trespass into the property, she filed the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction.

9. She stated that Krishnan claimed that the Tashildar, Arokonam had granted assignment of a portion of the schedule mentioned property in the name of his sister Vellai Kanniammal and therefore,