N. KRISHNAMOORTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit for declaration of title was laid in the year 2012 in O.S.No.211 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode. The plaintiff/revision petitioner has taken out an application in I.A.No.04 of 2021 for directing the 4th defendant/4th respondent (Tahsildar), Tiruchengode, to produce certain documents. The core contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that despite cautioning the revenue authorities of his existing title, they had mutated the revenue records to include the name of the 6th defendant namely S.Rajamani.

(2.) While so, the plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed I.A.4 of 2021 when he is in the witness box to establish his case for production of certain documents by the 4th defendant/4th respondent herein. Vide impugned Order dated 1. 12.2021, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode has dismissed it, which is now under challenge in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed emphasis much on the fact that when once objection is raised by the plaintiff to the mutation of the revenue records, it is imperative that the Tahsildar or such of the revenue authority who is responsible for the same must adhere to the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and ought to have held an enquiry, and that in the instant case this was not done. Hence, to prove the same, the plaintiff has come forward with I.A.No.4 of 2021 for the production of some documents by the 4th defendant. As indicated earlier this was dismissed.