ARAPPA GOUNDER Vs. CHITHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Arappa Gounder, the appellant in both the second appeals and the petitioner in W. P. No. 4896 of 1983 is the plaintiff in o. S. No. 484 of 1971 and O. S. No. 108 of 1975 on the file of learned Subordinate judge of Erode. While the subject matter of dispute in the earlier suit is the southern A. C. 3. 02 1/2 in S. F. No. 268 and the southern A. C. 6121/2 in S. F. No. 269, the disputed property in the next action is an extent of A. C. 3. 04 1/2 in the northern most part of S. F. Nos. 268 and 269 of Sankarapalayam village, Bhavani taluk. The entire extent which is stated to be of A. C. I 2. 19 1/2 originally belonged to four brothers viz. Maran,. Raman, Lakshmanan and Chinna Maran who are the sons of one Kuppan. There was no partition of this property among the brothers but each one was enjoying a specific portion for the sake of convenience. Kuppan died in the year 1963. On the basis of a promissory note executed by him, one Than-davan filed O. S. No. 114 of 1966 on the file of learned subordinate Judge, Erode and obtained a decree on 15. 4. 1967 against the three sons Maran, Raman and Chinna Maran and the legal representatives of the last son Lakshmanan, who was dead by then. In execution of the said decree, than-davan attached the entire properties in E. P. No. 7 of 1968and brought them for sale in court auction. The second respondent in S. A. No. 880 of 1981, the sole respondent in S. A. No. 881 of 1981 and first respondent in W. P. No. 4896 of 1983 Jayakrishnan purchased them in court auction held on 22. 1. 1970. The sale was confirmed on 21. 3. 1970.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, on 9. 6. 1967 Raman executed Ex. A-9 sale deed in favour of Chithan, the first respondent in S. A. No. 880of 1981 in respect of his one-fourth share in the suit items. The appellant Arappa Gounder claims that he is in enjoyment of this one-fourth share of Chithan as his lessee. He further alleges that on 14. 4. 1967, he took on lease for one year the other three shares of Maran, Lakshmanan and Chinnamaran under Ex. A-1 unregistered lease deed. He continues to be in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant by renewing the lease every year. Exs. A-2, A-3, and A-26 are the subsequent unregistered lease deeds dated 14. 4. 1968,14. 4. 1969 and 14. 9. 1970 respectively. The appellant adds that he has been recorded as a tenant of the entire suit properties under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Records of Tenancy Regulations) Act, 1969. Alleging that his enjoyment of the properties was sought to be disturbed by respondents 1 and 2 the appellant instituted the two suits for a declaration that he is a cultivating tenant with a right to be in possession of the suit properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the lands so long as he continued as a cultivating tenant. IN the alternative, he claimed for recovery of possession also.

(3.) 7. 1982. So the tenant has come forward with W. P. No. 4996 of 1983 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of certiorari calling for the records in T. R. No. 56 of 1976 on the file of the Tahsildar, Bhavani and quash the order made in A. P. No. 3 of l980 dated 28. 9. 1981 on the file of the r. D. O. , Gobichettipalayam which was confirmed in R. P. No. 8 of 1982 dated 7. 7. 1982 on the file of the court of District Revenue Officer. Jayakrishnan the second respondent in the S. A. No. 880 of 1981, the Record Officer and Tahsildar bhavani, R. D. O. Gobichettipalayam and D. R. O. Erode have been impleaded as respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition filed by Arappa Gounder, the appellant in both the second appeals. 7. At the outset, let us consider the various contentions raised by both parties in the writ petition. In T. R. No. 56/76 when the second respondent herein sought to delete the name of the appellant Arappa Gounder who was shown as a tenant in respect of the suit properties in the Record of tenancy Rights Register, the Record Officer rejected his evidence as P. W. I that the appellant trespassed into the properties 20 days after the former took possession through court pursuant to his court auction purchase on the ground of the admission of P. W. I in cross-examination that the appellant was in possession till that date and that the second respondent did not take any steps to evict the appellant from the property by giving police complaint for the alleged trespass. The Record Officer also relied on Exs. A-1 and A-2 the unregistered lease deeds in holding that the appellant was a tenant of the property. The plea of the second respondent that he did not know anything about the recording of the tenancy rights did not find favour with the Record Officer since in his view wide publicity was made about the implementation of the Tamil nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 and reasonable particulars were given to the interested persons to put forth their rights in the lands. When the order of the Record Officer came to be pronounced on 25. 2. 1980, the District Judge had already dismissed A. S. Nos. 81 and 82 of 1978 preferred against the judgment and O. S. No. 484 of 1971 and O. S. No. 108 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Erode. The plea of the present appellant that he was a cultivating tenant in possession of the properties was negatived by the civil courts in the abovesaid proceedings. The Record Officer held that the judgment of the civil court in favour of the second respondent was not binding on him and accordingly he refused to drop the name of the present appellant as tenant in respect of the suit items from the Record of Tenancy Rights Register.