VARADARAJAN Vs. S RAMASAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants preferred the writ petition against the order dated 6th April, 1987 in Pa. Mu. 119753/85 P. 1 passed by the Additional Collector, Salem, whereby and whereunder the order dated 10th October, 1984 in C. T. P. No. 3/82 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem was confirmed. By the said order, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem set aside the order dated 26th May, 1978 passed by the Tahsildar, Attur in respect of the tenancy rights for the property in question and in regard to the entitlement and enjoyment of the disputed property, both the parties were advised to get it clarified from the civil Court of law. The said order having been confirmed by the Additional Collector, Salem, the writ petition was preferred.

(2.) IT appears that with regard to the entitlement and enjoyment of the disputed property, O. S. No. 309 of 1976 was filed by the contesting respondents on the file of Sub Court, Salem against the appellants claiming mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per annum and the said suit was pending. At that stage, the writ petition was preferred by the appellants. They have also filed a suit in O. S. No. 35 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Salem for an injunction against the respondents from interfering with their possession.

(3.) AT the time of hearing of the writ petition, it appears from the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellants did not argue the matter on merit, but only sought for remand of the case to the Additional Collector, Salem to consider whether the claim was barred by limitation or not under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, which was vehemently opposed by the respondents.