JUDGMENT

The appellant K.Chandrasekharan is the legal representative of the second defendant in O.S.No.1777 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli. The said suit was instituted by the first respondent herein namely H.H.The Prince of Arcot represented by his agent for recovery of rent for faslis 1401, 1402 & 1403 with interest. In the suit, the defendants filed their written statements denying their liability to pay rent. The defendants took the stand that the suit property is not the property of the plaintiff and that it belonged to one M.L.Venkatachalam Pillai and that from the said Venkatachalam Pillai, they had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 18.07.1956. The defendants further pleaded that there is no tenancy agreement with the plaintiff. They further claimed that they are having settlement patta issued by the Assessment Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, an official of the endowment was examined as P.W.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked. The second defendant Arumugam Pillai examined himself as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked. The learned trial Munsif, by judgment and decree dated 06.11.2000 decreed the suit as prayed for and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.11,250/- to the plaintiff endowment with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed A.S.No.15 of 2001 before the Sub Court, Trichy. During the pendency of the appeal, the second defendant passed away and that is how, the appellant and the third respondent Krishnan @ Krishnamurthy came on record. By judgment and decree dated 16.12.2004, the appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, the appellant herein filed this second appeal.

2.The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(1)Whether the Courts below were correct in granting a decree for recovery of lease amount when the title of the plaintiff itself is disputed?

(2) Whether the Courts below erred in not considering the position of law that subsequent to Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1973 all the rights of the plaintiff, if any, stand abrogated?

(3) Whether the Courts below erred in granting a decree for recovery of lease amount when there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?”

3.At the outset, I must express my regret that this second appeal has to be disposed of without the original records being made available. When the matter was listed for final hearing, I directed the Registry to secure the records from the Court below. But it is learnt that the records were destroyed in April 2009 itself. The Court below cannot be blamed for having done so. Though the Judgment of the first appellate court is of the year 2004, the appeal itself came to be numbered only in the year 2014.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on Ex.B6 dated 08.03.2000. Ex.B6 is the order passed by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Registrar, Chennai dismissing the petition filed by the first respondent herein. It is stated that the said order dated 08.03.2000 has been put to further challenge. But the counsel on either side are not quite clear as to what happened to the same. It is seen that the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, vide order dated 18.04.1995 in R.P.No.19 of 1994 had ordered that the defendants in the suit namely Manickam Pillai and Arumugam Pillai are entitled to pay land revenue to the Government. Against the said order, the first respondent herein/plaintiff filed the revision petition. After a consideration of the contentions on either side, the revisional authority held that the plaintiff herein had only a melvaram right and kudivaram right vested only with the defendants herein in the suit. The revisional authority confirmed the order of the settlement officer that the ryotwari assessment shall be collected from the defendants