SIVARAMA SETHU PILLAI TRUSTEE SILUGAL CHATRAM ANGARAYANALLUR VILLAGE UDAYARPALAYAM TALUK TIRUCHY DISTRICT Vs. ROWDRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition seeks to quash the order dated 30.9.1989 of the 6th respondent confirming the order dated 30.1.1987 of the 5th respondent which reversed the order dated 28.7.1986 of the 4th respondent. These orders were passed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1969). The original order of the 4th respondent - Record Officer was pursuant to the application made to him by the 1st respondent for recording him as the cultivating tenant of the petition land. It held that he was a cultivating tenant under the petitioner herein. In his application before the 4th respondent, he impleaded the writ petitioner herein as the 1st respondent and one Ramakrishna Pillai, said to be the power agent of the writ petitioner herein. After the death of the said Ramakrishna Pillai his son, the 2nd respondent herein has come on record.

(2.) THE defence to the said application by the petitioner herein is that, only the 3rd respondent herein Parasakthi Ammal is the cultivating tenant of the land in question under the petitioner herein and not the 1st respondent herein. The original order of the 4th respondent accepted the said defence and dismissed the abovesaid application of the 1st respondent. However, in the subsequent appellate order of the 5th respondent and revisional order of the 6th respondent, the applicant (1st respondent herein) has succeeded, they having concurrently held that the 1st respondent is the cultivating tenant under the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the said two orders, this writ petition has been filed to quash these orders.

(3.) IN the present case, also the abovesaid 3rd respondent herein, Parasakthi Ammal is none other than the wife of the writ petitioner Sivarama Sethu Pillai. Further, as per the order of the 6th respondent, she was rich and aged 60 years. In the above circumstances, the conclusion reached by the 6th respondent insofar as the 3rd respondent is concerned, could not be stated to be not sound or suffering from any infirmity.