T SINGARAVEL ALIAS RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SUDARSANATHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of one Seetharama Naidu. He filed O.P.No.644 of 1982 for including his name in the Village Adangal in respect of R.S.No.101/4 of Thennangudi Melantham Village, Thirunallar Commune as 'his own cultivation'. This was treated as a petition under Section 7 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In this petition, he stated that he had entered into a sale agreement with one Rathinasamy Naidu of Thillayadi Village, who was the original owner, in the year 1963. Since the owner was in death bed, the sale deed was not executed. He paid the entire sale consideration and thereupon, he was put in possession and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from 1963 onwards and he was also cultivating the same. But, when his name was removed from the Village Adangal without notice to him, the petition was filed. The Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court, while dealing with this, observed that the Adangal extracts have been tampered with and though they show the name of the aforesaid Seetharama Naidu as cultivating tenant from 1969-1973, thereafter, it shows the landlord Rathinasamy Naidu as a 'self cultivator" and that the entries for the fasli 1384 (1975-75) and fasli 1385 (1975-76) had obviously been tampered with. He had also referred to a report of the Tahsildar, which stated that Seetharama Naidu had been cultivating the land. The Officer also observed that Seetharama Naidu himself was not decided whether he should claim his right as an owner or as a cultivating tenant and was vacillating between the two stands. When the matter was taken up by the Revenue Court, Seetharama Naidu had died and his legal heirs had not been impleaded and therefore, after recording the above finding, the petition was dismissed.

(2.) THE Officer, however, handed over the matter to the Deputy Collector for further action. This order was passed on 27.01.1986. THEreafter, in 1987, respondents 1 to 4 and 6 filed a petition under Section 4 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act claiming that they were the cultivating tenants in respect of the said property right from the time of death of Seetharama Naidu and prayed for change of name in the Adangal. In this, the legal heirs of original owner filed their counter denying the tenancy rights and also stating that in the earlier proceedings, no tenancy rights were claimed. THEn, the first respondent thereafter filed yet another petition in 1997 with the same averments and prayed for entering her name in the Village Adangal and to allow her to cultivate the land atleast from the current fasli year. Again, this was resisted by the sons of Rathinasamy Naidu represented by a power agent. An order was passed in favour of the first respondent holding that the finding that Adangal Extracts had been tampered with had attained finality and that there was a sale agreement between Seetharama Naidu and the original owner, though no sale deed was executed recording her name as a cultivating tenant. Against this, the owners filed a writ petition. THE writ petition was dismissed on the same grounds viz., alleged fraud committed with regard to the Adangal Extracts. Now, the transferees from the owners, have filed this writ appeal.

(3.) THE petitioners do not have any other income except the income from the said lands. Being the ladies they could not resist the respondents who with their men and agents cause all sort of troubles in the village." He prayed that the appeal should be dismissed. We have to see whether a case of cultivating tenancy has been made out.