V S ALWAR AYYANGAR Vs. GURUSAMY THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises in execution of a decree for a permanent injunction. The decree was passed on a clear finding that the decree holder was in possession to the suit land and the judgment debtor was seeking, to interfere with that possession. In the execution petition, the decree holder complained that the judgment debtor was seeking to interfere with that possession. In the execution petition, the decree holder complained that the. judgment debtor had willfully disobeyed the Court's injunction and accordingly prayed for the judgment debtor's detention in civil prison as the appropriate mode of execution against him. The executing Court has now dismissed his execution petition.

(2.) Before the executing Court , the judgment debtor had objected to execution being levied against him on the score that he was entitled to possession of the land. He stated that subsequent to the decree for injunction passed by Court Decree Evidence' of its willful exist - Onus lies on proceeding for ex-judgment debtor the Court, he obtained a declaration from a Record Officer that he was 4 cultivating tenant of the land.

(3.) Mr. Umapathi, learned counsel for the judgment debtor, stressed this circumstance in his argument, although the Court below did not particularly rely on this aspect while dismissing the execution petition. Mr. Umapathi relied on Section 16-A of Act 10 of 1969. (The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969). He said that the suit in this case was instituted after this section was introduced in the statute book in the year 1972. He pointed oat that under this section, a civil Court's jurisdiction is barred in respect of matters over which the Act has conferred powers in the Record Officer and other authorities. Learned counsel urged that a declaration by the Record Officer naming the judgment debtor as a cultivating tenant of the suit land was sufficient to enable him to resist the execution of the decree against him.