AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—The order passed in E.P. No. 69 of 1997 in O.S. No. 757 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Principal
District Munsif, Vandavasi is under challenge in this revision.
The said Execution petition was filed under Order 21 Rule 22 and under Order 21 and Rule 35 CPC. The suit in O.S. No. 757 of 1995 was
filed by the plaintiff for injunction restraining the defendants viz.,The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai, The Tahsildar,Taluk
Office, Vandavasi and The Special Tahsildar Natham Survey, Taluk Office, Vandavasi from issuing the patta for the plaint schedule property in
favour of one Suseela Ammal, who is not a party to the suit and for mandatory injunction against the above defendants to grant patta in respect of
the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. An exparte decree was passed in the suit on 3.1.1997.
It is represented on behalf of the revision petitioners that unfortunately a petition filed to set aside the exparte decree along with the condonation
of delay application in I.A. No. 214 of 2000 in O.S. No. 757 of 1995 was dismissed. The plaintiff has filed E.P. No. 69 of 1997 to execute the
decree.
The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that overlooking the fact that the suit itself is not maintainable u/s 9
CPC and u/s 14 of Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act 1983,the plaint was numbered by the trial court and an exparte decree was also passed by
the learned Principal District Munsif which is against the provisions of law. The suit is clearly barred u/s 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act
1983 which runs 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 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.
Section 9 of CPC also prohibits such a suit under the following terms:
The Court shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a Civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation 1- A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend
entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation II- For the purposes of this Section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation 1 or
whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.
So u/s 9 of CPC, if a suit is expressly or impliedly barred under any provision of law, the Court cannot take cognizance of it.
Under such circumstances, I am of the view that O.S. No. 757 of 1995 is hit by Section 9 of CPC and an exparte decree passed in O.S. No. 757
of 1995 cannot be executed under E.P. No. 69 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi.
At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would represent that the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 757 of 1995 may
be permitted to move before this Court for giving necessary directions to the Government for the issuance of a patta in respect of the suit property
in his favour. It is open to the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 757 of 1995 to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum for seeking
appropriate relief to get patta in respect of the suit property, after impleading the necessary parties particularly Suseela Ammal.
In fine, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is closed.