G ANNAMALAI PILLAI Vs. DIST REVENUE OFFICER CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under a registered deed dated 27-12-1971, the fourth respondent, father of the 5th respondent, executed a lease deed for a period of five years in respect of his minor son 5th respondent's separate property in favour of the appellant herein, on the date when the lease deed was executed, the fifth respondent was a minor, his date of birth being 27-9-1957. Claiming to be a cultivating tenant by virtue of the lease deed executed by the 4th respondent, the appellant filed an application before the Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (Act 10 of 1969), praying to register him as a tenant in the tenancy records as per the provisions of the Act. The 5th respondent contested the said proceeding on the ground that the lands are his properties, that his father had no manner of right or title to deal with the same and lease the property contrary to the provisions of S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (XXXII of 1956), that he had no knowledge of the same, that he avoided the lease executed by his father on 15-9-1978 and that, therefore, the appellant could not claim any right under the Act. Though there was some dispute as to whether the land belonged to the 5th respondent or not, all the authorities have held that it belonged to the 5th respondent and there is no dispute about the same in this appeal. On the question whether there was any valid tenancy, the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, held that in view of Sec.8(2) (b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and the lease having been avoided by the minor after he attained the age of majority, there was no valid lease and the appellant could not claim the status of a cultivating tenant and accordingly he dismissed the petition.

(2.) On appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, the second respondent herein, however, held that the appellant was a contractual tenant and that, therefore, he is entitled to be registered as a cultivating tenant.

(3.) The 5th respondent preferred a revision to the first respondent, the District Revenue Officer, South Arcot at Cuddalore, who set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, and restored the order of the Tahsildar, holding that the appellant is not a cultivating tenant. The writ petition filed by the appellant, having been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed against the order in W. P. No. 3143 of 1978.