SARASWATHI AMMAL Vs. PONNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchi in A.S. No. 111 of 1986 in reversing that of learned District Munsif, Musiri in O.S. No. 1411 of 1982. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed for a decree for permanent injunction, the plaintiff contending that the suit property originally belonged to one Chellammal, wife of Periannan, the mother of the plaintiff, who was living at Penang. She purchased it for a sum of Rs. 9,000 on 15.7.1960 from one Muthuswamy Pillai under registered sale deed-Ex.A-1. Chellammal was residing at Penang and the plaintiff is the only legal heir of Chellammal, living in India and the plaintiff had been entrusted with the property, to look afte r the same and to maintain proper accounts. Since then, the plaintiff was in possession and cultivating the property and paying the kist. No other person had any right or possession of the property. THE first defendant was sister of the plaintiff's husband and the second defendant was the son of the first defendant. While they have absolutely no right, title or interest over the property, since the plaintiff was a lady, the defendants were assisting the plaintiff in managing the property inclusive of pa ying the taxes. But the defendants, taking undue advantage of the situation, sought for the entrustment of the land for themselves to cultivate the land and as the plaintiff refused to oblige them, the defendants had adopted a hostile and challenging attitude. THE defendants being influential persons, had high-handedly obstructed the plaintiff from irrigating the lands on 20.12.1982 and hence the suit.

(3.) HERE is a case where the owner, being a lady who lives in Penang (Malaysia), now dead, during the pendency of this second appeal and her only heir, daughter, the plaintiff, seeks to prevent her own late husband's sister, usurping possession of the property on the basis of contradictory pleadings and tailored revenue records. The surprising feature is that the defendants do not dispute that the property belongs to the plaintiff's mother and that the plaintiff is the only legal heir of her mother, but, yet, are able to take high-handed advantage of the loopholes in the legal system and stick to the possession of the property, thus depriving the lawful owner, her property. The trial Court, after a very careful and detailed analysis of the evidence, disbelieved the evidence of the defendants and also held that the order issued by the Tahsildar under Ex.B-18 dated 2.5.1984 recording the name of the first defendant as a cultivating tenant, cannot be sustained due to various reasons. The learned District Munsif had also referred to several vital contradictions between the pleadings and the evidence on the side of the defendants as regards the alleged taking over the possession of the lands by the first defendant as a tenant and the admitted fact that one Pitchai Rathinam, who was the Village Munsif during the relevant period, was a very close relative of the defendants. After taking into account of the relevant circumstances, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the entry in the revenue records cannot advance the case of the defendants in any manner. In contrast, without considering any of the evidence, the appellate Court merely took note of the order issued in favour of the first defendant under Ex.B-18 and concluded that since the first defendant's name had been entered in the register, it would follow that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue. Such a finding rendered oblivious of the circumstance that the very step taken before the authorised officer under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 was only subsequent to the filing of the suit and without proper service of the notice either to the land owner or to the plaintiff and that the entire circumstances relating to the passing of the order under Ex.B-18 would vitiate the said proceedings. It has to be borne in mind that when once the defendants had conceded that the property belongs to the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff was the lawful heir, when the first defendant seeks to establish that she was a tenant of the land, the burden is on her to establish the same.