S.S. Subramani, J.
1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 236 of 1990, on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court at Karaikal, is the appellant.
2. Material facts which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit may be summarised thus: Plaintiff claimed that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, having taken a sale deed dated 2.12.1986 from one Ramachandran. Plaintiff's vendor has purchased the property from its previous owner Bashyam Naidu. as evidenced by Ex.A-1. It is his case that the patta for the property stood in the name of Bashyam Naidu and subsequently he got the patta changed in his name and he has also paying kist to the property.
3. The reason for filing the suit was, without notice to him first defendant included the name of fourth defendant also in the patta and now both of them have become joint patta holders. This, according to plaintiff, is invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when the name was inserted without notice to him. He has further said that procedural formalities have not been complied with before including the name of fourth defendant also as joint patta-holder. Request was made to respondents 1 to 3 to correct the entry in the patta and to delete the name of fourth defendant since the request was not complied with, the suit was filed for mandatory injunction to compel the defendants 1 to 3 to correct the entries.
4. First defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 and 3, disputing the claim of plaintiff. According to them, 4th defendant has purchased the very same property from one Bashyam Naidu as per document dated 22.12.1962 and there had been prior proceedings regarding the same. According to them, plaintiff cannot have his name included, nor is a suit for mandatory injunction maintainable. According to them, the remedy of the plaintiffs only to have his title declared by filing a properly framed suit. It was further contended that the suit is barred by Section 25(1) and (2) of the Pondicherry Settlement Act, 1970. As per that section, a suit of this nature is not maintainable in a civil court.
5. The trial court, after taking oral and documentary evidence, held that the court has no jurisdiction and the same is barred under Section 25(1) of the Pondicherry Settlement Act. Under that section, no suit shall lie in any civil court, to set aside or modify any assessment made under the Act. The trial court was of the view that the remedy of the plaintiff is only to move the authorities under the Act and to have the same corrected. The trial court further held that defendants 1 to 3 have followed the correct procedure, and only after due enquiry, they entered the name of fourth defendant also in the patta. The suit was dismissed.
6. The matter was taken in appeal as A.S. No. 9 of 1994, on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal. The lower appellate court also confirmed the decision of trial court and dismissed the appeal.
7. The concurrent judgments of both the courts below are assailed in this second appeal on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted in deciding the change of entry in revenue records in respect of patta, especially when there is no order passed by the competent authority as contemplated under the provisions of Pondicherry Settlement Act, 1970?
8. A learned Judge of this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the relevant file, and in pursuance of the same, the file was produced before me. Learned Judge also wanted the production of the order whereby the fourth defendant's name was directed to be included as joint patta holder. From the file produced before court, I do not find that there is any such specific order directing inclusion of name of fourth defendant, as joint patta-holder. The learned Government Pleader only relied on the proceedings of the Government of Pondicherry, Settlement Branch Office, Karaikal, R.C. No. 1210/90/Sett/KKl, dated 23.7.1990. I also find from the file that in the chitta, fourth defendant's name is also included. But there is an endorsement therein that the same has been entered as per Application No. 1200/88, dated 7.9.1988. That application was filed by plaintiff to enter his name, after he purchased the property. Under what circumstance, the name of fourth defendant was included in that application is not clear. But on going by the file, this Court has to presume that it can only be on the basis of the order dated 23.7.1990.
9. It is seen that the forth defendant has moved the court on the basis that her name has been included as joint patta holder per her petition received in No. 342/90/Estt./Karaikal, dated 19.2.1990. I do not think that notice of this application was given to plaintiff, and all the other references mentioned in the order dated 23.7.1990 do not show that any notice was given to plaintiff before that Order was passed. The specific case of appellant is that the name of fourth defendant was included in the application without notice and without calling for ob-. jections. From the records available in the file produced by learned Government Pleader, I do not find that notice has been given to appellant before the Order dated 23.7.1990 was passed.
10. The question of jurisdiction of civil court will have to be considered in the above background.
11. In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh : [1968]3SCR662 , a Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has summarised the position as to under what all circumstances the jurisdiction of civil court is barred. The said decision was followed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) . In paragraph 44 of the judgment, relevant portion of Dhulabhai's case has been extracted. It reads thus:
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil courts' jurisdiction must, be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where the is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.
(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the tribunals.
(4) When a provision is already unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit.
(5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies.
(6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is are relevant enquiry.
(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.
[Italics supplied]
12. It is clear from the above decisions that the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred unless the conditions stated in those decisions are fully complied with.
13. Entry of one's name in the patta gives him certain rights. He is recognised as owner of the property. Certain legal rights flow from such recognition. It is a recognition by the Government or by the Revenue Authorities that he is the owner of the property. It is an evidence of title. That right cannot be taken away, nor can the name of any other person be included in the patta without notice to him. To get a patta is a common law remedy. The various Circulars by the Revenue Department prescribe only the procedure. That right is not created for the first time under the Statute. If that be so, plaintiff is well within his rights to contend that the patta which stands in his name shall not be altered or another man's name be included therein without notice to him. Even in cases where a right is created under the Statute, the remedy through Civil Court is not barred if a fundamental principle of a procedure has not been complied with. In this case, the plaintiff's definite case is that the entire proceedings of the Government is violative of the principles of natural justice and he has not been given notice at any point of time. From the file, I find that this contention of plaintiff is justified. It is true that under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Settlement Act, remedy through civil court is barred. But that exclusion of jurisdiction will apply in cases where the Authorities have acted in accordance with law or they have acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. An enquiry behind the back of plaintiff cannot be considered as an act in conformity with law. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit mainly for the reason that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.
14. It is true that the trial court has further held that an enquiry has been conducted and the name of fourth defendant has been included, only after such enquiry. Before the trial court, Government files were produced and various proceedings have been marked. But the trial court has failed to consider whether that enquiry was after notice to plaintiff. The trial court also did not say that the plaintiff was given notice. Proceedings dated 23.7.1990 is of quasi-judicial in nature and plaintiff is entitled to be heard before any order was passed. The decisions of the courts below are, therefore, not correct.
15. The further, question that arises for consideration is, whether plaintiff is entitled to any mandatory injunction. That question will arise only if it is found that fourth defendant has no right over the property. Fourth defendant has put forward a claim that she is the real owner and her name was also included in the patta. When that claim is put forward, the Authorities are bound to enquire into it, after following the procedure. Under these circumstances, I feel that the following direction will meet the ends of justice.
16. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to issue notice to plaintiff on the application of fourth defendant seeking inclusion of her name also in the patta and call for explanation or atleast objection. Respondents 1 to 3 must give atleast 21 days time to the plaintiff to explain his stand. Thereafter, after notice to plaintiff and defendants, an enquiry shall be conducted and final orders shall be passed by the authorities in accordance with law. If ultimately the authorities find that the fourth defendant is not entitled to any right, they shall retain the name of plaintiff alone in the patta and delete the name of fourth defendant. The second appeal is allowed and disposed of as indicated above. No costs.