This second appeal challenged an injunction order under an Act protecting cultivating tenants. The court held that a suit for pure injunction is maintainable and the civil court can incidentally determine tenant status, distinguishing it from cases requiring a declaration relief.
Second appeal dismissed; injunction order confirmed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.01.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 25.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.1348 of 2003
1.Thulasiammal
2.Parameswari
3.Sudanthiravalli
4.Rajavadivelu
5.Annamalai
6.Vinayagam
7.Dhanalakshmi
8.Raji
9.Sekar ... Appellants/Defendants 1 to 10 in
Trial Court
Vs.
1.Amsammal
2.Mani ... Respondents/Plaintiffs in
Trial Court
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 01.04.2002 made in A.S.No.55 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Court, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1998 made in O.S.No.556 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Subbarayalu for Mr.G.Jeremiah
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and decree dated 01.04.2002 passed in A.S.No.55 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Court, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.556 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore.
trial Court.
3. Suit for permanent injunction.
dismissed.
“ (i) Whether the order of the Court below in granting an order of the injunction in favour of the respondents is sustainable in law in view of the categorical decision reported in 1984 1 MLJ page 345 wherein it is observed that if the civil Court cannot proceed to investigate whether the person is a cultivating tenant or not, then equally it cannot declare that the respondents have such rights?
(ii) Whether the court below failed to note that the consequential relief of injunction depends upon the adjudication with reference to status of the respondents and when that cannot be done by the civil court, then the consequential relief of injunction cannot be granted?”
that the Adangal extracts marked by the defendants would not serve their case and disbelieving the case of the defendants that Kuppan had stolen the electricity bills and also negativing the contention put forth by the defendants that in the absence of any record to establish that the plaintiffs are the cultivating tenants of the suit properties as provided under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, the plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable, holding even otherwise the suit laid by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction is maintainable, the Courts below, accordingly, finding that it is only the plaintiffs, who are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and cultivating the same as the cultivating tenants thereof and accordingly, also noting that the defendants are attempting to disturb their possession and enjoyment without any authority of law, granted the relief sought for by the plaintiffs.
(Pankajam and others Vs. Chinnaswamy Naidu). It is found that the said decision was also projected before the Courts below, however, the Courts below found that the above said decision would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the present suit laid by the plaintiffs is only for a mere injunction and the plaintiffs have not sought for the relief of declaration that they are the cultivating tenants of the suit properties and thereby, entitled to the Protection of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant protection Act. On a perusal of the materials, it is found that the above said determination of the Courts below deserve acceptance.
consequential relief of injunction depending upon the adjudication with reference to the status of the plaintiff, whether he is the cultivating tenant or not and when that cannot be done by the Civil Court, it was determined in the said decision that the consequential relief of permanent injunction also cannot be granted. Therefore, it is found that what had been decided in the above said decision is that once the relief of declaration sought for as regards the status of the cultivating tenant cannot be determined by the Civil Court and thereby, the same had been declined, the civil Court would not be competent to grant the consequential relief of permanent inunction sought for.
“ Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Right Act (X of 1969), Section 16A- suit for injunction – Question whether the tenant was a cultivating tenant – Question incidental – Jurisdiction of civil Court to entertain suit.
Though section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1969 excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine a question which the authorities constituted under that Act had to decide, the present suit, which is one for mere injunction, can be maintained in the civil Court. It is true for the purpose of granting the relief of injunction claimed in the suit, the Court has to incidentally go
into the question as to who is in possession of the property and in what capacity. The fact that the Court has to consider an incidental question for the purpose of granting the main relief claimed in the suit will not make the suit incompetent in a civil Court.”
“ 36. . . . . . . A controversy may arise whether the land has been let for cultivation by a tenant at all. The question to be considered is, whether the determination of that controversy is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities functioning under the Act so as to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under S.16-A. From the language of S.3(2) it cannot be stated that the determination of that controversy is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities functioning under the Act, though the determination of that controversy is basic and fundamental to the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Record Officer and the other authorities under the Act. The very object of the Act is to provide for the preparation and maintenance of record of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural lands and therefore if there is no tenancy in respect of a land,
there is no question of an further particulars being determined. This aspect is made clear even from the definition of the expression ' landowner' occurring in S.2 (5) of the Act, because according to the said definition, 'landowner' means the owner of the land let for cultivation by a tenant and includes the heirs, assignees or legal representatives of such owner or person deriving rights through him. Consequently, the controversy as to whether a particular piece of land has been let for cultivation by a tenant or not is one constituting the jurisdictional issue which a Record Officer has to decide before he can determine any other matter under the Act. But that controversy cannot be said to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities functioning under the Act, because to hold so will enable the statutory authorities to assume jurisdiction by erroneously deciding the jurisdictional issue. If the controversy arises, the authorities functioning under the Act have necessarily to decide the same, because a decision on that controversy alone will determine the jurisdiction of the authorities functioning under the Act. If the decision is that the land has been let for cultivation by a tenant, then the Record Officer will have jurisdiction to determine the further particulars provided for in S.3 (2) of the Act. If, on the other hand, the decision of the controversy is that the land has not been let for cultivation by a tenant there is no question of there being any tenancy rights in respect of the said land and consequently, there is no question of the Record Officer ascertaining or determining any further particulars in this behalf. Therefore, if such controversy arises, that controversy cannot be said to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities functioning under the Act, and any determination of that controversy by the authorities can be said to be only incidental to the assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities under the Act. Subject to this qualification it can be held that once the Record Officer or any other authority functioning under the Act has come to the
conclusion that the land has been let for cultivation by a tenant, the matters provided for in S.3 (2) have to be determined by the Record Officer, or other authority functioning under the Act, and to that extent the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under S.16 of the Act.”
“ The question came to be decided by one of us (Ramanujam, J) in Palanisami V. Ramaswami Gounder, judgment dated 5th January, 1977). That arose from a suit filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff as a cultivating tenant. The plaintiff in the suit was the first respondent before this Court and his case was that he took the suit property on lease from respondents 2 and 3 in 1967 on an annual rent at Rs.400 that he continued to be in possession of the land as a cultivating tenant ever since, that though he was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955, respondents 2 and 3 had sold the land on 7th April, 1975 to the appellant
who had chosen to interfere with his possession on the basis of the said purchase and that had occasioned his suit for permanent injunction. One of the defences put forward by the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 was that after the period of one year from the date of the lease, the first respondent-plaintiff had surrendered possession of the land, that subsequently he was not in possession of the same and that therefore, he was not entitled to the permanent injunction. The Courts below had rejected this contention of the appellant, third defendant and respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 and 2 ) and this Court concurred with that conclusion. However, one other point that was urged before this Court was that S.16-A of the Act excluded the jurisdiction of the civil Court and the question as to whether the first respondent was a cultivating tenant in respect of the said lands could not be gone into in that suit, as it was a matter to be decided exclusively by the authorities constituted under the Act and in support of that contention reliance was placed on the Bench decision of this Court in Muniyandi V. Rajangam Iyer referred to already. After referring to the said decision, this Court in the judgment in the second appeal referred to above observed-
“ Dealing with the contention regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain this suit as framed, the lower appellate court has expressed the view that the relief sought for in the suit does not in any way, infringe the functions of the Record Officer, and that, therefore, the first respondent can invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court if his possession is sought to be disturbed by the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 and that S.16-A will not, therefore, stand in the way of the first respondent maintaining this suit. I am of the view that though S.16-A excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine a question which the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1969 had to decide, the present suit, which is one for
mere injunction, can be maintained in the Civil Court. It is true, for the purpose of granting the relief of injunction claimed in the suit, the Court has to incidentally go into the question as to who is in possession of the property and in what capacity. The fact that the Court has to consider an incidental question for the purpose of granting the main relief claimed in the suit will not make the suit incompetent in a civil Court. In Ramaswami Raja V. Ellaypa Gounder Ramachandra Iyer,J. as he then was, had held that an injunction, which is a preventive remedy, can be granted only by the Civil Court, that there is no inherent power in any tribunal to grant an injunction and that, therefore, the tenant has always got his remedy to approach the Civil Court for the relief by way of injunction whenever his possession is interfered with. In Ramachandra Sastrigal V. Kuppusami Vanniar, while dealing with the scope of S.6-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955, a Division Bench had expressed the view that in a simple suit for an injunction laid in a Civil Court for restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, the defendant, even if he were to be a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act, cannot gain anything by merely having the forum of adjudication being shifted from the Civil Court to the Revenue Court as it is obvious that a Revenue Court cannot grant any injunction. Inn Sri Venkatanarayanasami Deity Vs. Vadugammal, a Division Bench of this Court, while construing the scope of S.93 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, held that a relief which cannot be granted by the Deputy Commissioner under S.57 can be asked for in a Civil Court and that the Civil Court, while deciding whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief asked for, can go into and decide incidental questions which may fall within S.57. The Bench has observed “ Therefore, the preponderance of authority of our Court is that a civil suit is not barred in respect of a relief which cannot be granted by the Deputy Commissioner and that in such a suit,
the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide incidental issues which are within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner.”
On the pleadings in the case, there are three possibilities. Firstly, the plaintiff in the suit might have been in possession of the suit lands on the date of suit and he may be a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955. If this is the real position, an injunction must issue in favour of the plaintiff. Secondly, the plaintiff might have been in possession of the suit lands on the date of suit but he might not be a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act. Even in such a case the plaintiff is, entitled to an injunction by virtue of his having been in possession of the suit property on the date of suit, as he is entitled to continue in possession until duly evicted by the true owner. The third possibility is the plaintiff might not have been in possession of the suit lands on the date of suit, In such a case whether he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act or not, the suit must fail. Therefore, if the plaintiff is in a position to get an order of injunction even without establishing his status as a cultivating tenant, the suit cannot be thrown out merely because it raises an incidental question as to whether the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant or not. I am , therefore, of the view that the Civil Court jurisdiction to entertain this suit for injunction cannot be said to have been taken away under S.16-A of the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1969”.
and concluded that they are of the opinion that the above decision correctly represents the scope and effect of Section 16-A. Accordingly, it is seen that the full bench has approved the decision of justice Ramanujam rendered in S.A.1496/76 dated 05.10.1977, which decision has come to be reported in 1977 1 MLJ (SN) page 5 and therefore, it is seen that as per the above said decision of justice Ramanujam, the civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable and in such a suit, the Civil Court has the
jurisdiction to incidentally go into the question as to in what capacity the plaintiff is in possession of the property, whether as the cultivating tenant thereof or otherwise.
In conclusion, the second appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(co) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sms To 1. The Additional District Court, Vellore. 2. The Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore. S. A.No.1348 of 2003 PPA(CO) sm:13.2.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction when the tenant status is an incidental question under Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Right Act.
Whether a suit for mere permanent injunction is maintainable even if the primary relief of declaration is not sought.
Whether the decision in Pankajam Vs. Chinnaswamy Naidu applies to a suit seeking only permanent injunction without a prayer for declaration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pankajam and others Vs. Chinnaswamy NaiduDistinguished¶31
AIR 1984 MADRAS 235 · Who else cites this
Ponnusami V. District Revenue Officer, North.ArcotReferred¶33
1980 Mad 180
Periathambi Goundan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and ors.Relied on¶47
AIR 1980 Mad 169 (FB) · Who else cites this
K.S.Palaniswamy Vs. Ramaswami GounderRelied on¶38
1977 1 MLJ (SN) Page 5
Periathambi Goundan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and ors.Relied on¶43
AIR 1980 Mad 169 (FB) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Thulasiammal and others
Amsammal and others
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
