For RR 1 to 9 : No appearance.

For RR 10 to 12: Ms.R.Revathi, Government Advocate

ORDER
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.
4. 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 Nanjappan died intestate on 5.4.2002 leaving behind the
plaintiff and one Pattusamy as his legal heir and Pattusamy also died on 19.3.2004
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 alongwith 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 6 on 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.

6. According to Mr.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a bar

under section 14 of the Patta 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 under section 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.
7. 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 Code of Civil Procedure 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, or
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trail of the suit, or
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
8. 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 Honourable 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 under section 14 comes into operation and therefore,
the suit is not maintainable insofar as the second relief is concerned.
11. According to me, there is a proviso to section 14 and if one reads the proviso
alongwith 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 pass-book shall be amended in
accordance with any such declaration."
12. 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.
13. 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 favour of the plaintiff even without setting aside the orders passed by
the D.R.O and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai.
14. 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 petition is also dismissed.