SUBRAMANIAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the First Respondent, dated 27.12.2004 rejecting his claim to record his name as cultivating Tenant in respect of subject matter lands. The case of the Petitioner is that an extent of 14.90 Acres of Punja lands at Survey No. 1/2 in Jamin Singampatti Part I Village, originally belonged to one late R.K. Viswanatha Thevar. After his demise, the widow Sarojini Devi sold 4 acres 90 cents to the Petitioner, out of the said 14 acres 90 cents. The remaining 10 acres are the disputed lands. The said Sarojini Devi executed a Tenancy Agreement in favour of the Petitioner, on 14.6.1984, in respect of those 14 acres and 90 cents for a period of six years. The lease amount fixed was Rs. 1,200/- per year. The tenancy was in respect of the land and the trees standing thereon. The Petitioner is contributing his physical labour by cultivating the land as well as watering the trees. The Petitioner had raised chilli crops in a portion of the land. The Record Officer, after a full fledged enquiry, recorded the Petitioner's name as the cultivating Tenant, by his order dated 15.12.1991. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the same by his order dated 28.11.1994. However, the First Respondent set aside the orders of the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, in a Revision filed before him, through his order dated 26.12.2004. Aggrieved against the same, the present Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner.

(2.) The Respondents 2 & 3 filed a Counter Affidavit and denied the claim of the Petitioner. It is stated by them that the Tenancy Agreement dated 14.6.1984 relied on by the Petitioner is a false and invalid document. The said Sarojini Devi had no right to execute the said agreement in respect of the entire 14.90 acres as she got right and title over 4.90 acres only, as per the registered Will dated 8.3.1976 executed by their father late. R.K. Viswanatha Thevar. Under the said Will, the entire 14.90 acres were divided into three parts. The southern 5 acres were allotted to Third Respondent herein; the middle 5 acres were allotted to the Second Respondent herein and the northern 4 acres 90 cents were allotted to the said Sarojini Devi, the mother of Respondents 2 & 3. The said Will came into force immediately on the demise of their father on 8.3.1976 and accordingly, the Respondents 2 & 3 and their mother are enjoying their respective shares all along. Therefore, their mother had no right to assign any tenancy right in respect of the entire 14 acres 90 cents. Even otherwise, the Agreement dated 14.6.1984 had only given the right of plucking fruits from the standing trees. It is further contended by the Respondents 2 & 3 that their mother did not sell 4 acres and 90 cents of land in favour of the Petitioner. On the other hand, the Petitioner filed O.S. No. 184 of 1992, a Suit for Specific Performance, based on a Sale Agreement dated 24.7.1987 alleged to have been executed by their mother in respect of 4 acres and 90 cents out of 14 acres and 90 cents of land. The Suit was contested by their mother. However, a decree came to be passed in favour of the Petitioner. An Appeal filed against the said decree, though was dismissed, a Second Appeal in S.A. No. 614 of 2007 filed by the Respondents 2 & 3 herein as the legal-heirs of the deceased mother, is still pending before this Court. It is further contended that the document dated 14.6.1984 is not a Lease or Tenancy Agreement. But, on the other hand, it is only a license to collect usufructs from the standing trees. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim any right as cultivating tenant based on the said deed. When the Petitioner was granted only a license to collect usufructs, he had no right to cultivate the land and therefore, the findings recorded by the Record Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority are factually incorrect. It is further stated that the Petitioner did not produce any document to show that he had paid the said amount of Rs. 1,200/- per year to their mother or to the Respondents 2 & 3, after the demise of their mother. It is further stated that though the First Respondent passed the order on 27.12.2004 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had challenged the same only in the year 2007, which attitude shows that there is no bona fide on the part of the Petitioner.

(3.) Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a Cultivating Tenant in pursuant to the Lease Agreement executed by the said Sarojini Devi on 14.6.1984. The recital of the said Lease Deed would undoubtedly show that it was not merely a license given to the Petitioner to collect the usufructs alone from the standing trees, but also to enjoy the land as Cultivating Tenant especially, when the Petitioner was asked to maintain the well and pumpsets in the said land. The Petitioner is contributing his physical labour by watering the trees. Therefore, such act would bring the Petitioner within the meaning of Cultivating Tenant. When the trees need nourishment from soil, the Petitioner, by watering those trees, has indulged in the act of cultivation. The said Sarojini Devi, the mother of Respondents 2 & 3, was entitled to enter into the Lease Deed as the co-owner. Therefore, the Lease Deed executed by her is valid and binding on the Respondents 2 & 3 as well. Before the Record Officer, the Respondents 2 & 3 as well as their mother were arrayed as parties and they never questioned the authority of the mother to execute the Lease Deed. All of them, jointly filed the First Appeal. The Respondents 2 & 3 never objected their mother's action by issuing any notice questioning the Lease Agreement. Therefore, the mother acted as an agent of the Respondents 2 & 3 and such agency can be inferred from their own conduct. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the Petitioner had wrongly averred in the Affidavit, as if, the mother had sold 4 acres and 90 cents to the Petitioner, the fact remains that it was only an Agreement of Sale and the dispute is pending between the parties by way of Second Appeal before this Court. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the dispute is with regard to the remaining 10 acres only.