JAYAMANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in both the suits are the revision petitioners and the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order of the learned Trial Judge passed in Interlocutory Application in 173 of 2004 in O. S. No. 253 of 2000 and I. A. No. 172 of 2004 in O. S. No. 245 of 2000 respectively filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaints which was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. In both the cases, the plaintiffs filed the suits for declaration and possession against the first and second defendants in the suit, namely, the District Collector, Coimbatore and Tahsildar Pollachi in respect of the natham land situated in Survey No. 371/5 and 371/4 and for a consequential permanent injunction.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs in both the suits is that admittedly, the said lands are natham purambokke lands and the husbands of the respective petitioners have been in occupation for nearly 40 years and putting up a thatched shed and were running a mutton stall and they have been paying B memo charges. After the death of the husbands in the case of C. R. P. No. 1445 of 2004 and after the death of her father-in-law in the case of C. R. P. No. 1726 of 2004, the plaintiffs have been occupying the property running mutton stalls and the defendants 1 and 2 have issued patta in the names of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the third defendant, who was suspended Village Administrative Officer, has threatened to vacate the plaintiffs and at his instigation the Sub-Collector has called for the records based on which the second respondent is taking steps to evict the plaintiffs from the suit property.

(3.) IN those circumstances, the above suit was filed. During the pendancy of the suit, the second defendant along with the said Village Administrative Officer has dispossed the plaintiffs forcibly and therefore an amendment petition was filed and the suit prayer for possession was also included. The said amendment itself was filed and subsequently, allowed as per the direction of this Court in the order dated 25. 08. 2000.