MUTHUSAMY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order in W.P. No. 8031 of 2010 dated 08.10.2010 whereby the Revenue Authorities of Paravai Village and Post, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District, were directed to restore possession of the property in question to the petitioner therein/5th respondent herein within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

(2.) THE writ petition came to be filed by the 5th respondent herein, namely, Valliammai, on the ground that the property in question was owned by her ancestors and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the same right from the year 1939 onwards. Sometime during 1983, one Muthusamy, the 1st appellant herein, made an attempt to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property in question by trespassing into it with the help of some rowdy elements. THErefore, the husband of the 5th respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 467 of 1983 before the District Munsif Court, Perambalur and obtained a decree on 26.07.1984. An execution petition was also filed for execution of the decree and subsequently, the husband of the 5th respondent was put in possession of the property and after the demise of her husband, the 5th respondent had been in possession of the property without any interference. While so, during September, 2009, when the 5th respondent was away from the village, the present appellants trespassed into the property and erected certain structures. When the 5th respondent questioned the same, she was threatened by the appellants herein armed with deadly weapons. Hence, she lodged a complaint, which was registered in Crime No. 483/2009 on the file of Kunnam Police Station. THEreafter, she filed an application before the Executive Authority under Section 145 Cr.P.C. seeking restoration of possession. THE said application was not considered. THErefore, the 5th respondent filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, Perambalur District to take appropriate action on the said application.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that though certain documents were filed to prove that the husband of the 5th respondent was put in possession based on a decree, those documents could not be proved for want of examination of the officers, who had issued them. Nevertheless, the finding of the Court in the subsequent suit filed by the appellants could not be considered to be a finding on merits and that finding, would not, in any way, go against the finding given in the suit filed by the husband of the 5th respondent wherein it was held that he was in possession and the decree was also executed. In view of the above finding, according to the learned counsel, it must be presumed that the 5th respondent was in possession of the disputed property.