DHANALAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal has been directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.3158 of 1993 dated 12.10.1999. THE unsuccessful petitioner in the Writ Petition is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal can be stated as under: Appellant purchased an extent of 1.77 acres comprised in Survey No. 76/4 in Ariyamangalam Village, Trichy Taluk and District from Pangajathammal and Renganayagi Ammal under a registered sale deed dated 27.1.1982. According to the appellant, as the 4th respondent attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S. 159 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichy. THE 4th respondent resisted the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, 4th respondent approached the Tahsildar/Record Officer, Trichy in T.R. No. 22 of 1983 under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") obviously claiming to be the tenant and also in possession of the property. THE appellant herein filed her counter in the said tenancy proceedings on 24.8.1983, on 26.10.83 the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichy dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by that, appellant filed appeal in A.S. 341 of 198 3 on the file of the District Judge, Trichy. By Judgment dated 24.4.1984, the learned District Judge set aside the Judgment of the Subordinate Judge and decreed the suit. THEreafter, 4th respondent filed S.A.454 of 1984 on the file of this Court, but however the same was also dismissed on 24.8.1984. THE 4th respondent claiming that on 4.9.1985 he was dispossessed, filed a petition for restoration before the Tahsildar/Record Officer, Trichy on 1.10.1985. Subsequently on 4.10.1988, the Tahsildar/Record Officer dismissed the petition in T.R. No. 22 of 1983. 4th respondent filed Appeal No. 11 of 1988 before the second respondent herein. THE second respondent by order dated 6.5.1991 remanded the matter back to the third respondent by way of giving opportunity to examine certain witnesses by parties for the reasons stated in the said order. THE appellant, being aggrieved by this, filed a revision before the first respondent viz. District Revenue Officer, Trichy. THE first respondent herein by order dated 12.1.1993 in Revision No. 3 of 1992 set aside both the orders and directed the third respondent to record the name of the 4th respondent as cultivating tenant. Being aggrieved by that order, appellant herein filed W.P.3158 of 1993.

(3.) NOW the question is whether such a finding of the Civil Court viz., that the appellant was in possession of the property in question on the date of filing of the suit is binding on the authorities acting under the Act or that it should be considered by the authorities acting under the said Act while deciding whether the 4th respondent is a cultivating tenant or not.