AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Defendants 2 to 6 in O.S. No. 316 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Palladam are the revision Petitioners.
2 Defendants 2 to 6/revision Petitioners herein filed the above revision for rejection of the plaint. It is submitted by Mr. Raghavachari, learned
Counsel for the revision Petitioners that the Respondents/Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit property
and for consequential injunction restraining the revision Petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property
and to declare that the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore dated 25.6.2007 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Land
Reforms, Chennai dated 7.1.2009 in respect of the suit property is against law and for mandatory injunction to keep the revenue records in the
name of the Plaintiff.
3 According to Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel for the Petitioners that insofar as the first relief is concerned, the suit is maintainable but,
insofar as the second relief is concerned, it is barred by Section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act and therefore, the suit has to be rejected in respect
of the second relief. He also submitted that as per Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may, at any stage of the
proceedings, order striking off any matter in pleading for reasons stated therein and as the second relief is barred by Section 14 of the Patta Pass
Book Act, the second relief has to be struck off form the plaint. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners relied
upon various judgments.
To appreciate the contention of the revision Petitioners, necessary facts are to be stated. The suit property originally belonged to one Nanjappan
alias Chinna Podusan and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death on 5.4.2002. The said Nanjappandied intestate on
5.4.2002 leaving behind the Plaintiff an done Pattusamy as his legal heir and Pattusamy also died on19.3.2004 leaving behind Plaintiffs 7 to 9 as his
legal heirs. The revenue records also show that the property stands in the name of Nanjappan. The Special Tahsildar, UDR Scheme also issued
separate patta in the name of Nanjappan on 19.3.1984. Defendants 1 to 5 are having land adjacent to the suit property and they have no right
over the suit property. The sixth Defendant, with mala fide intention of grabbing the suit property from the Plaintiffs, obtained power form
Defendants 1 to 4 and approached the D.R.O., Coimbatore along with the fifth Defendant to change the revenue records into their name by
deleting the name of Nanjappan with the help of the Village Administrative Officer and that was also considered by the D.R.O., Coimbatore and
order was passed by the D.R.O., Coimbatore granting patta in the name of Defendants 5 and 6on 25.6.2007. This order of the D.R.O was
challenged by the Plaintiffs before the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai and the same was dismissed on 7.1.2009. In these circumstances,
the suit was filed for the relief prayed for.
5 Respondents 1 to 9 were served and their names were also printed in the cause list, there was no representation for them. Respondents 10 to 12
are represented by the Special Government Pleader.
According to Mr. Raghavachari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there is a bar u/s 14 of the Atta Pass Book Act that no suit shall lie against
the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book that is maintained under this
Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended and the second relief prayed for by the Plaintiffs viz., for declaration that the order passed by
the D.R.O., Coimbatore and confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai are null and void is barred u/s 14 as no suit shall lie
against the Government or any officer of the Government and therefore, the second relief cannot be maintained against the Defendant.
It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners that insofar as the first relief is concerned, the suit is maintainable. Therefore, we
will have to see whether the suit can be dismissed insofar as the second relief is concerned. Under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC the Court may at
any stage of the proceedings, order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading-
(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trail of the suit,
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
It was submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. Raghavachari that the second relief sought for by the Petitioners come under the category of 16(a)
and (c) and therefore, the court has got power to strike off the second relief.
9 I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and in my opinion, the second relief prayed for in the suit
cannot be brought under Rule 16(a). Though Mr. Raghavachari vehemently argued that it will come under Rule 16 of Order VI stating that it is a
clear case of abuse of process of court citing various judgments of Honorable Supreme Court and our High Court, in my opinion, it cannot be
stated that it is an abuse of process of court when a person prays for a declaration that the orders passed by the authorities are null and void.
Therefore, I am not referring to the judgments referred to by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners.
10.The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that the second relief is barred by section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act as
the said section clearly provides that no suit shall lie against the Government or any officer in respect of any claim to have an entry made in the
patta pass book. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that the name of Nanjappan was deleted and the names of
respondents 5 and 6 were introduced in the patta and therefore, the bar provided u/s 14 comes into operation and therefore, the suit is not
maintainable insofar as the second relief is concerned
According to me, there is a proviso to section 14 and if one reads the proviso along with the main section, one can easily come to the
conclusion that the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be accepted. Section 14 reads as follows:-
No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass-book that is
maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass-book under this Act, he
may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta passbook shall be amended in accordance with any such
declaration.
Therefore, as per the proviso to section 14, a right is given to a person in possession of the property who is aggrieved by an entry made in the
patta pass book to institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, to sue for declaration of his right under
Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act.
Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act deals with declaratory decrees and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to ask for declaration that the order
passed by the DRO and confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai are null and void. Further, it is admitted that the first relief is
maintainable and therefore, even in the absence of the second relief, as per the proviso to section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act, the court can
grant the relief of declaration of title to the suit property in favor of the plaintiff even without setting aside the orders passed by the D.R.O and
Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai
Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be stated that Section 14 is a bar for seeking the declaration that the order of the revenue authorities
granting patta in other''s name cannot be maintained in a civil court. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the court below.
In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions also dismissed.