K M NALINISHREE Vs. BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed stating that the suits are to be rejected, as barred by law. The filing of the suits by the plaintiffs is clearly an abuse of the process of law. The trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands, as they were never in possession of the properties, which are the subject matter of the suits. The trial Court had failed to see that the prayer in the suits, for a direction, for the issuance of pattas by the civil Courts, is barred by the Revenue Board Standing Orders.

(2.) The trial Court ought to have noted that the suit properties had been assigned as 'Anathinam' lands, in recognition of the meritorious service of the deceased husband of the petitioner. The court below ought to have noted that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit properties and that it was only the petitioner, who has always been in possession of the suit properties. The trial Court had failed to appreciate that the certified copy of the S.L.R. filed by the petitioner, along with the written statement, would clearly show that the survey numbers shown by the plaintiff did not co-relate to the suit properties and that there was nothing to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands described in the scheduled plaint and the extent of the properties shown therein are incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, dated 9.10.2007, made in C.R.P.(PD) No.2131 of 2007, to state that the all the suits in question are similar to the suit in respect of which this Court had passed the order, dated 9.10.2007.

(3.) The learned counsel for the first respondents in the civil revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos.2586,2589,2592 to 2596, 2598 & 2599 of 2008 had submitted that the first respondents in the civil revision petitions, who are the plaintiffs in the suits, had purchased the properties, during the year 1988-89. Only in the year, 1999, the lands had been assigned to the petitioner, after the plaintiffs in the suits had applied for patta, in respect of the said land, before the authorities concerned. Since, the plaintiffs were having pre-existing rights in the properties in question, the claims of the petitioner in the civil revision petitions are not sustainable. After the Tamil Nadu Inam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, had come into force, the plaintiffs' vendor, who has been cultivating the lands, should have applied for a fresh patta, under Section 64 of the said Act. Further, by way of a Government Order in G.O.1300 (Revenue Department), dated 20.4.1971. empowering the authorities to grant the patta for those persons, who are outside the scope of the Act. The Government had extended the time for obtaining the patta and the said Government order had been extended to Thazhambur Village. The said Government order had been extended by the Government of Tamil Nadu to Thazhambur Village, by way of a Government Order, in G.O.M.s.No.239 Revenue (SSI) Department, dated 19.3.1996. As such, the plaintiff ought to have been granted the patta in terms of the said Government Order.