THANGAVEL UDAYAR (DIED), Vs. KATHAYEE AMMAL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed the above Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal order dated 18.4.2001 made in E.P.No.181 of 2000 in O.S.No.1033 of 1994 by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. The first respondent/first defendant/Judgment Debtor and his Legal Representatives are the Revision Petitioners herein.

(2.) The brief history of the case is that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1033 of 1994 had entered into an agreement with P.C.Meeran, the father of the 2nd defendant, on 3.4.1974 to fell the sandalwood trees and remove them from the lands of the plaintiffs; that since the said Meeran did not act as per the terms of the agreement and performed his part as agreed, the agreement was cancelled and he had lost his right under the agreement; that thereafter, the plaintiffs had been moving the District Forest Officer for cutting orders in their name but they were reluctant to issue cutting order in favour of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs moved this Court in W.P.No.1563 of 1994 against the District Forest Officer and the District Collector, Madurai for giving necessary directions to them to permit the plaintiffs to extract the sandalwood from their patta lands; that the 2nd defendant had filed W.P.No.5890 of 1994 before this Court objecting to the claim of the plaintiffs; that then, in that proceeding, this Court passed an order remitting the matter to the District Collector, Madurai, directing him to consider the claim and counter claim of the parties; that the then Collector of Madurai also had passed an order on 27.3.1984 directing the District Forest Officer, to transfer the cutting permit in the name of the land owners i.e. the plaintiffs; that due to the prolonged intervention and objections by the 2nd defendant, the issuance of the cutting order was very much delayed and hence the plaintiffs had entered into a compromise with the 2nd defendant on 7.11.1986 under which, the plaintiffs had agreed to sell the sandalwood to one B.Venkateswara Rao of Madras and the 2nd defendant and to get the cutting order in his name and assign it in favour of B.Venkateswara Rao for some gain; that there was a tripartite agreement, but again as B.Venkateswara Rao and the 2nd defendant had failed to act as per the contract and perform their part, those agreements also had become unenforceable and that the 2nd defendant had also lost all rights under the agreement.

(3.) The further facts of the case are that chagrined at the failure, the 2nd defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.2458 of 1990 before the Court of District Munsif, Dindigul against the plaintiffs and others for permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with the entry of the 2nd defendant in the properties of the plaintiffs for the purpose of numerating the sandalwood trees therein; that the plaintiffs hotly contested the suit by stating that the 2nd defendant had no subsisting interest to maintain the suit; that finding that he cannot overcome the defence and succeed in the proceeding, the 2nd defendant allowed the suit and hence the same as dismissed as not pressed on 3.2.1992; that as such the exclusive right of the plaintiffs over the sandalwood trees in the plaintiffs' properties is confirmed and continued as before; that the first defendant had approached the plaintiffs once to purchase the sandalwoods in their lands; that the offer of the first defendant was turned down by the plaintiffs; that the first defendant being an influential person had made up his mind to take the sandalwood from the plaintiffs' land at any cost as the value of them is increasing very much; that there has never been any agreement between the plaintiffs and the first defendant at any time and hence, the first defendant had no manner of right over the sandalwoods of the plaintiffs; that the first defendant who was craving for the sandalwoods appeared to have created some records in collusion with the 2nd defendant to make a claim to the sandalwoods of the plaintiffs and he moved this Court for the transport of the sandalwoods from the plaintiffs' land to the Depot of the Forest Department, by filing a writ petition; that the plaintiffs represented by P.E.Dhanraj Pillai had objected to the prayer of the first defendant through W.P.Nos.10976 and 10978 of 1994; that in the meanwhile as the first defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant moved the defendants 3 and 4 and with their help, attempted to remove the sandalwoods from the plaintiff's land, the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present defendants 1 to 4 restraining them from entering into the lands of the plaintiffs and removing the sandalwoods in O.S.No.329 of 1994 and the same is pending before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul and also filed an application for temporary injunction.