R CHINNADURAI PADAYACHI Vs. R KASINATHAN; L CHINNAPPA PADAYACHI; C THANGARASU PADAYACHI; ADDITIONAL RECORDS OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THANJAVUR; SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE COURT (SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR), THANJAVUR AND DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the 4th respondent's proceedings in R.T.R. No. 112 of 1983 dated 31-08-1983 and subsequent proceedings in R.T.R. No. 34/91, dated 28-06-1993 and 5th respondent's proceedings in R.T.R. Appeal P. No. 6/93 dated 19-01-1994 and 6th respondent's proceedings in R.T.R.R.P. No. 4 of 1994, I-3 dated 24-10-1994 and quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to dispose of the matter on merits by giving opportunity to the petitioner to examine the petitioner's witnesses in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

(2.) Heard both sides. The petitioner and 3rd respondent herein have entered into a sale agreement in respect of agricultural lands measuring 10 cents in RS No. 35/2 out of 31 cents at No.88, Kothangudi Thattimal Village on 04-06-1984 for a sum of Rs.3,625/-. The 3rd respondent, though received a sum of Rs.1,000/- as advance under the said agreement failed to execute the sale deed, with the result the petitioner filed suit in O.S. No. 6 of 1985 for specific performance of the contract and the said suit was also decreed by the trial court. The trial court itself executed a sale deed dated 06-03-1991 which was registered as document No.121 of 1991 with Sub-registrar, Swamimalai. The petitioner has filed E.P. No. 98 of 1991 for recovery of possession and possession was also handed over on 13-04-1991 in the presence of Village Administrative Officer and others. Thereafter, the 1st respondent allegedly interfered with the possession of the plaintiff, hence a complaint dated 02-05-1991 was filed by him with the local police. The 1st respondent has also filed another suit in O.S. No. 5 of 1991 to restrain the petitioner from interfering into his possession on the ground that he is a cultivating tenant under the 3rd respondent herein. It is also alleged by the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent has executed a tenancy agreement dated 23-06-1983, which agreement was also recorded by the 4th respondent in R.T.R. No. 112 of 1983 dated 30-01-1983. The petitioner has also filed an application before the 4th respondent in T.R.R.P. No. 34 of 1991 to cancel the earlier proceedings against the 1st respondent. The petitioner herein has canvassed before the 4th respondent that the property originally belonged to one Lakshmana Padayachi, later under a partition deed dated 29-06-1993 the same was allotted to the 2nd respondent herein. Subsequently, the said property was partitioned between the 2nd respondent with his two sons namely Rajaram and Thangaraj, 3rd respondent herein and allotted 10 cents each. The 2nd respondent sold his share in Survey No.35/2 along with another son measuring about 20 cents to the 1st respondent's wife. The portion allotted to the 3rd respondent to the extent of 10 cents was purchased in the manner mentioned above and sale deed executed by the court and possession also delivered to him. According to the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 4 colluded with each other with the result R.T.R. No. 112 of 1993 was ordered against him. The petitioner came to know the R.T.R. Proceedings only after receipt of the pleadings in O.S. No.5 of 1991. It is also the case of the petitioner that "adangal" in the fasli 1393 and 1395 do not contain the name of 1st respondent as cultivating tenant. The 4th respondent has passed the impugned order dated 28-06-1993 in R.T.R. No. 112 of 1983 rejecting the petitioner's contention. The 2nd and 3rd respondents do not oppose the petitioner's contention.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent/first appellate authority mechanically confirmed the findings of the 4th respondent and dismissed the appeal on 19-01-1994. The 5th respondent also failed to consider the decree passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1985 and order passed in E.P. No. 98 of 1991 in O.S. No. 6 of 1985 dated 13-04-1991 thereby the possession was delivered to the petitioner. Against the order of the 5th respondent, the petitioner herein has filed a revision petition under Section 7 of the Act before the 6th respondent in R.T.R.R.P. No. 4 of 1994 and the 6th respondent also dismissed the revision.