N. KRISHNAN Vs. R. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in a second appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the suit property forms part of Katticulam New Kanmai Poramboke located in Survey No. 214/1 measuring 28 acres and that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 14-11-1983, was illegal and unenforceable. The trial court accepted the plea raised on behalf of the defendants that the suit was not maintainable, having regard to Sec. 64-C of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short "the Act"). The plaintiffs filed first appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The first appellate court took a contrary view holding that the suit was maintainable, having regard to the nature of the relief sought for. The defendants filed second appeal before the High Court contending that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court were against law and unsustainable. The High Court, in the second appeal, considered the substantial question of law as to whether the suit filed in a representative capacity claiming rights of irrigation without impleading the Government was not maintainable and the question relating to the classification of land as ryotwari or otherwise. As is evident from the impugned judgment, the High Court, following the two earlier decisions of this Court in State of T.N. V/s. Ramalinga Samigal Madam and R. Manicka Naicker V/s. E. Elumalai Naicker upheld the judgment of the first appellate court concurring with the view taken by it that the suit was maintainable. In the impugned judgment, it is observed that as long as no relief was sought for against the interest of the State or the officers of the State, it was absolutely not necessary or essential for the plaintiffs to implead the State or the authorities. The High Court also noticed that in almost similar set of facts in Ramalinga Samigal Madam this Court has approved the view of the High Court that the suit was maintainable.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants took pains to distinguish the two aforementioned decisions of this Court by referring to other decisions. When the decisions of this Court are directly on the point dealing with the similar set of facts and referring to the very provisions of the Act, namely, Sec. 64-C, we do not think that we can take a different view, more so when a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avargal V/s. T. Parvathi Ammal referring to R. Manicka Naicker held that the view taken therein is a correct view. In the case of R. Manicka Naicker, the case of Ramalinga Samigal Madam was also relied on.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned judgment.