Manickammal vs C. Balu and M. Subbiah

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner/first Respondent has projected the Civil Revision Petition as against the fairorder dated 10/6/2005 in T.C.T.P No. 189 of 1991passed by the Special Deputy Collector,Madurai/Revenue Court.

The Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector, Madurai, while passing the orders in T.C.T.P No. 189 of 1991 dated 10/6/2005 as among other things observed that the Respondents therein.,Viz the Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition and the second Respondent in Civil Revision Petition as well as in T.C.T.P No. 189 of 1991 are established to be the cultivating tenants and as such they have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-as five years arrears of lease rent for the period from 1987as per oral agreement dated 20/1/1985 in respect of suit lands and the said amount has been directed to be paid within a period of two months.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/first Respondent submits that the order of the Revenue Court in T.C.T.P No. 189 of 1991 dated10/6/2005 is an erroneous one and as a matter of fact, the Revenue Court should have directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to get their title confirmed.

It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner that the first Respondent/Petitioner has not established the alleged tenancy and the alleged rent by means of oral and documentary evidence.

In short, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that if the order of the Revenue Court dated 10/6/2005 is allowed to stand, then, it will result in miscarriage of justice besides causing irreparable hardship to the Petitioner.

Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent/Petitioner that the second Respondent as fourth Respondent in O.S. No. 251 of 1975 has filed I.A. No. 124 of 1979 on the file of the learned Additional District Muns if Court, wherein, in the affidavit at paragraph 4 has averred that, after the death of his father, in respect of the suit properties, he and other legal heirs have got the lease/tenancy right and further, they have given a petition dated 20/9/1979 before the Tahsildar(Tenancy), Dindigul for registering their names as cultivating tenants and they have also prayed forstay of the suit.

The learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent/Petitioner urges before this Court that the second Respondent in I.A. No. 124 of 1979 inO.S. No. 251 of 1975 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court has clearly stated that they have given a petition dated 20/9/1979before the Tahsildar (Tenancy), Dindigul for registering their names as cultivating tenants and when that being the case, it is not open to the Petitioner and the second Respondent to take a different stand which is contrary in nature.

It is to be noted that the revision Petitioner and the second Respondent can not approbate and reprobate in the matter in issue to suit their convenience.

On going through the order of the Revenue Court dated 10/6/2005 in T.C.T.P No. 189 of 1991,this Court finds that the Revenue Court has come to the conclusion that in respect of the suit lands, the name of the revision Petitioner and the second Respondent have been directed to be registered as cultivating tenants by means of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and as against the said order, the revision petition has been filed by the first Respondent/Petitioner which has been dismissed.

From the order of the Revenue Court dated 10/6/2005, it is candidly clear that the revision Petitioner and the second Respondent are only held to be the cultivating tenants and they have been directed to pay the lease amount ofRs.25,000/-for a period of five years beginning from the year 1987 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-peryear as per oral agreement dated 20/1/1985 in respect of the suit lands etc. Therefore, it is not prudent on the part of the revision Petitioner to assail the order of the Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector dated 10/6/2005 which has been passed on the basis of appreciation of documents and evidence filed and adduced by the parties and in any event, the said order of the Revenue Court dated 10/6/2005is a fair, just and equitable order in the considered opinion of this Court. At this stage, it is to be borne in mind that, if a litigant makes an admission in the form of declaration before land Tribunal, the same is admissible against such person. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the first Respondent/Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court to the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Thimmappa Rai Vs. Ramanna Rai and Others, , wherein it is held as follows:

An admission made by a party to the Suit in an earlier proceedings is admissible as against him. Such an admission being a relevant fact, the Courts below in our opinion were entitled to taken notice thereof for arriving at a decision relying on or on the basis thereof together with other materials brought on records by the parties. Once a party to the Suit makes an admission, the same can be taken in aid, for determination of the issue having regard to the provisions of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act

In the light of the detailed discussions as mentioned supra and this Court taking note of the overall assumption of the facts and circumstances of the present case in a conspectus fashion, comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merits and consequently, the same is dismissed without costs.