VENKITARAMA IYER Vs. VESU AIMNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 1976 is the appellant. He filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of his title. His case is that he obtained the property in partition as per Ext. A1 dated 5-6-1946. Originally the plaint schedule property was described as 40 cents in R.S. 1/B2 and 3 cents in R.S.1D/38 of Ayakad Amsom in Alathur Taluk. By amendment of the plaint as per I.A.No.708 of 1982 the description of the property was corrected as R.S.1E/1Al having an extent of 20 and 1/8 cents. First defendant filed written statement contending that her husband and father of the 2nd defendant obtained the plaint schedule property on lease 35 years prior to the institution of the suit from plaintiff's brother Subramanya Iyer.

(2.) Contention of the plaintiff is that the courts below wrongly relied on Exts.B6 and B7 to uphold the tenancy claim set up by the defendants. It is contended that the courts below obviously overlooked the fact that Ext.B6 order was passed during the pendency of the suit. On the basis of Ext.B6 the Land Tribunal held that second defendant is entitled to tenancy right in the property. That finding was accepted by the Munsiff and accordingly the suit was dismissed. The Sub Judge held that notice was served on the plaintiff in the suo motu proceedings before the Land Tribunal and as there is no rule preventing the Land Tribunal from making an order during the pendency of the suit and as Ext.B6 order has become final plaintiff is not entitled to the decree sought for.

(3.) The main contention of the appellant is that no significance can be attached to Ext. B6 order of the Tribunal as it is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Counsel relied on Parameswaran Thampi v. Thomas Podiyan ( 1984 KLT 397 ) decision of a Division Bench of this Court for the proposition that the decision in suo motu proceedings (Ext.B6) is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Counsel for the defendants, on the other hand contended that Ext.B6 would operate as res judicata and merely because the suit happened to be filed earlier the significance and importance of Ext.B6 cannot be whittled down. In other words it is contended that the order of the Land Tribunal would operate as res judicata even though it was obtained pending the civil suit.