IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 21.12.2009 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition Nos.21450 of 2008 and 15851 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.21450 of 2008, and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 in W.P.No.15851 of 2009, W.P.No.21450 of 2008:- R.Mohan Ranganathan. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu Division, Chengalpattu. 3.The Tahsildar, Chengalpattu. 4.S.A.Bheemaraja. ... Respondents W.P.No.15851 of 2009:- S.A.Bhimaraja. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram. 2.The Tahsildar, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 3.R.Mohan Ranganathan, 4.C.A.Kabeer. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition No.21450 of 2008 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 dated 16.5.2008, confirming the order of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.179/2007 dated 23.6.2007 and direct the second respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner by effecting changes in the UDR for the property situated at S.No.223/2, 1.38 acres, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Writ Petition No.15851 of 2009 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the review petition dated 30.3.2009 filed against the orders in Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 dated 16.5.2008 after giving opportunity to all the parties. For petitioner in WP No.21450 of 2008 and respondents 3 and 4 in WP No.15851 of 2009 : Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh For respondents 1 to 3 in WP No.21450 of 2008 and respondents 1 and 2 in WP No.15851 of 2009 : Mr.V.Manoharan, Government Advocate. For 4th respondent in WP No.21450 of 2008 and Petitioner in WP No.15851 of 2009 : Mr.S.Kamadevan. COMMON ORDER Writ Petition No.21450 of 2008 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 dated 16.5.2008, confirming the order of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.179/2007 dated 23.6.2007 and direct the second respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner by effecting changes in the UDR for the property situated at S.No.223/2, 1.38 acres, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2. Writ Petition No.15851 of 2009 is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the review petition dated 30.3.2009 filed against the orders in Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 dated 16.5.2008 after giving opportunity to all the parties. 3. Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 claim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certain rights over the property in Survey No.223/2, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk in Patta No.65 which originally stood in the name of one Mr.Gulam Rasool Sahib. 4. Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 challenges the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, the first respondent in both the cases whereby the claim of the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan for grant of patta was rejected and the rival claim made by Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 was negatived and the patta was restored in the name of one Gulam Rasool Sahib, a dead person, who died in the year 1948. Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 is aggrieved by the proceedings, primarily on the ground that the rejection of the application for granting patta in his name and restoring the patta in the name of a dead person Gulam Rasool Sahib is contrary to law and the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue. 5. Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 on the other hand states that he is entitled to patta and his claim was rejected stating that he has no valid legal right. 6. It is pertinent to point out that both the parties claim rights as purchasers of property. The transfer of the property as claimed is as hereunder. 7. The case of Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 is as follows:- (i) One C.A.Kabeer, the fourth respondent in W.P.No.15851 of 2009, son of late C.A.Hafees and two others filed a suit O.S.No.8667 of 1985 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against 9 individuals and officials, viz., the Sub Registrar, Thiruporur, as the 10th defendant, and the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, as the 11th defendant. One Mrs.Mehrunnisa was arrayed as the second defendant. The suit O.S.No.8667 of 1985 was decreed ex parte and a declaratory decree was passed on 11.11.1989, and it reads as follows:- "thjpfs; vy;yh chpikfisa[k;. cilik chpikfisa[k; j';fs; Kd;ndhh;fsplkpUe;J mile;jhh;fs; vd;W tpsk;g[if bra;ag;gLfpwJ/" The property which is the subject matter of the present writ petition is found in "B" schedule of the suit decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 bearing Survey No.223/2 in an extent of 1.38 acres. (ii) Prior to passing of declaratory decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985, certain events happened and the same are as follows. On 6.3.1984 Mrs.Mehrunnissa, the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 along with eight others filed a partition suit O.S.No.2241 of 1984 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ separately against Malik Basha and 115 others before the City Civil Court, Chennai claiming 92/1564 shares in the suit property which includes the Survey No.223/2, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk contained in Patta No.65. After some period of time, on 17.6.1985, the suit O.S.No.2241 of 1984 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said Mrs.Mehrunnissa, however, did not choose to file a fresh suit, but proceeded to execute a sale deed dated 19.6.1985 bearing document No.1447/85 in favour of one Mr.Manickam and two others, without there being a decree for partition. In the suit O.S.No.2241 of 1984, Mrs.Mehrunnissa claims to be wife of Abdul Hamid alias Hayath Basha and states that the property devolved on the plaintiffs as grandson and daughter of Mohammed Sadiq, son of C.Gulam Hussain. As per the plaint, the cause of action for the suit arose when Gulam Hussain and Mohammed Sadiq, the grandfather and the father of the plaintiffs died. There is no reference to late Gulam Rasool Sahib, the patta holder, as per order of the Revenue Authority. (iii) While the properties were transferred by Mrs.Mehrunnissa to Manickam and two others, in June, 1985 the said C.A.Kabeer filed suit O.S.No.8667 of 1985 as stated above on 5.11.1985 and obtained the declaratory decree on 11.11.1989. Mr.C.A.Kabeer filed another suit O.S.No.1076 of 1999 on 26.11.1998 against the Sub Registrar, Tiruporur and the Tahsildar Chengalpattu. The second suit was filed to declare that the decree passed on 11.11.1989 in the declaratory suit O.S.No.8667 of 1985 as binding on the official respondents and that they should not make any changes in revenue records contrary to the declaratory decree passed in O.S.No.8667 of 1985. It is not in dispute that the suit O.S.No.1076 of 1999 filed by Mr.C.A.Kabeer was dismissed on 28.7.2005 and the appeal in A.S.No.555 of 2005 filed on 19.8.2005 was dismissed on 30.8.2006. Second Appeal No.21 of 2008 was also dismissed on 17.9.2009. (iv) Thereafter Mr.C.A.Kabeer, the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 applied for patta, but was not granted at that point of time. The said C.A.Kabeer thereafter entered into an agreement with the petitioner Mohan Ranganathan on 29.3.2006. On 18.4.2006, Mr.C.A.Kabeer executed two sale deeds in respect of the property under lis in document Nos.3526 of 2006 and 3545 of 2006 in favour of the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan. The petitioner Mohan Ranganathan filed an application to the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu on 29.4.2006 for issuance of patta based on the sale documents and other records. (v) Further, on 21.12.1988, Mr.Manickam and two others who purchased the subject property from Mrs.Mehrunnissa on 19.6.1985 executed a sale deed in favour of one Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal residing at Door No.8, Agatheeswarar Koil Street, Villivakkam, Chennai-49. Based on the sale deed dated 21.12.1988, patta No.337 was issued in favour of Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal by the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu. On https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.3.2006, even prior to the sale of the property by Mr.C.A.Kabeer to the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the said Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal handed over the possession of the property to one Mr.R.Gokulakannan, brother of the petitioner Mohan Ranganathan. On 19.3.2006 a complaint was lodged by Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal to the V4 Rajamangalam Police Station stating that she lost the original title documents relating to the property situated at S.No.223/2, Padur village. On the very same day, Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal entered into an agreement with Mr.P.Gokulakkannan, brother of the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan in respect of the above said property comprised in Survey No.223/2, Padur village to an extent of 1.38 acres. On 18.4.2006, the sale agreement entered into between R.Gokulakkannan and Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal was cancelled. On 18.4.2006, a release deed was executed by Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal in favour of the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan stating that she has received certain amount and that she is unable to execute the sale deed in view of the declaratory decree passed in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 on 11.11.1989. From the records and pleadings, it is seen that Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal after executing the release deed has approached the revenue authorities raising objections for issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner Mohan Ranganathan. On 20.10.2006 Mrs.P.Kasthuriammal, claiming to be residing at No.4, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, VGN Shanthi Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai-53 executed a sale deed in respect of the above said property and registered it as document bearing No.9228/06 before the Sub Registrar Office, Tiruporur in favour of Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the fourth respondent in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009. This gave the Bhimaraja the right to claim patta and to enter into the foray claiming right over the property. (vi) Based on the request made by Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008, for issuance of patta, the Tahsildar, the third respondent in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 passed an order in Na.Ka.No.3723/06/A2 dated 29.12.2006 recommending the deletion of the name of Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal from the revenue records and for transferring the patta in the name of Mr.Mohan Ranganathan. He forwarded the file to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu with his comments and recommendation. One of the reasons given by the Tahsildar, recommending the issuance of patta to Mr.Mohan Ranganathan is the declaratory decree which has become final and that the subsequent suit O.S.No.1076 of 1999 filed by Mr.C.A.Kabeer even if dismissed does not negate the right that flows from the decree passed in O.S.No.8667 of 1985. This view is also based on the opinion of the Government Pleader. The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O., in short), thereafter took up the adjudication of the claim for issuance of patta considering the plea of rival parties and by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.179/07 recommended the case of the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan for issuance of patta and to delete the name of Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal from the revenue records. The said R.D.O. proceedings was forwarded to the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Revenue Officer (D.R.O., in short). On 30.3.2007, the District Revenue Officer, the first respondent in both writ petitions by his proceedings No.O.Mu.No.5947/2007/N4 dated 30.3.2007 while concurring with the views of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for effecting the change of patta in favour of the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan. In other words, the District Revenue Officer returned the file back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of patta as recommended. The file on return to the Revenue Divisional Officer was kept idle for a quite sometime. Petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan filed W.P.No.19784 of 2007 for early disposal and by order dated 9.6.2007 this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent in W.P.No.21450 of 2008, to dispose of the file Na.Ka.No.179/07 on merits after hearing the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan. (vii) The claim of Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the 4th respondent in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 as well as the claim of Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal, the vendor of Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja were considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and by proceedings dated 23.6.2007 in Na.Ka.No.179/2007 passed an order rejecting the claim of both the parties and directed them that Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 to go before the Civil Court for establishing their claim. (viii) Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 filed appeal on 22.10.2007 to the District Revenue Officer in appeal No.52097/07/N4. It appears that Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 also filed an appeal to the District Revenue Officer on 9.7.2007. This Court by order dated 25.1.2008 in W.P.No.36573 of 2007 directed the District Revenue Officer to dispose of the appeal No.52097/07/N4 in a time bound manner. (ix) Thereafter, District Revenue Officer, the first respondent in both the writ petitions, decided the appeals and rejected both the appeals stating that the principal vendor Mrs.Mehrunnissa had no title to the property and Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 is not entitled to patta in view of the dismissal of suit O.S.No.1076 of 1999, which was confirmed in appeal. The two claims for issuance of patta was rejected and the District Revenue Officer restored the patta in the name of the dead person Gulam Rasool Sahib. The said order of the District Revenue Officer, the first respondent in both the writ petitions, in proceeding Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 dated 16.5.2008, is under challenge in W.P.No.21450 of 2008. 8. As far as Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 and the fourth respondent in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ concerned, he claims that Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal sold the property to him on 20.10.2006. On the basis of the said sale deed, patta was issued in favour of Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja on 7.5.2007. Thereafter, some criminal proceedings were initiated by one or other parties in respect of the property and by proceedings dated 15.5.2007, the Tahsildar cancelled the patta issued in favour of Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja. Challenging the same, Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja filed an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer which was rejected in the common order dated 23.6.2007 in Na.Ka.No.179/07 referred to earlier, directing the parties to go to the Civil Court. Thereafter, an appeal was filed to the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer in his order dated 16.5.2008 in Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 rejected the appeal filed by Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja for issuance of patta and restored the patta in the name of Gulam Rasool Sahib, the dead person. Thereafter, Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja filed Review Petition dated 30.3.2009 and the same is stated to be pending. Hence, Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, filed W.P.No.15851 of 2009 for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the review petition dated 30.3.2009 filed against the order in Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 dated 16.5.2008. 9. It is stated that both the parties filed Second Revision Petition before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai-5 and the same was returned stating that as per the present Government Orders, the second Revision will not lie. Hence, Mr.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 filed application before the first respondent to review his order. Thereafter, Bhimaraja has filed two petitions M.P.Nos.1 of 2009 and 2 of 2009, one for permitting him to raise additional grounds and other for amendment of the prayer in the Writ Petition to quash the order of the first respondent dated 16.5.2008. In the above stated factual matrix, the plea of both parties for issuance of patta and the order of rejection has to be considered. 10. Heard Thiru Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.15851 of 2009; Thiru S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 and the fourth respondent in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.15851 of 2009. 11. On merits, the learned counsel for Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 contended as follows:- (i) The rejection of the petitioner's claim for issuance of patta by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent, directing the parties, the petitioner and the fourth respondent to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the claim, is clear abdication of his function as a competent authority under the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue. The authority is bound to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decide the issue relating to grant of patta on the basis of available records and cannot relegate the parties once again to civil Court. The civil Court's order already passed is binding on all concerned. (ii) The authority erred in rejecting the claim for patta in favour of the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, who has the benefit of a civil court decree in suit O.S.No.8667 of 2005. There cannot be further adjudication of the claim since the said declaratory decree has not been set aside in a manner known to law and is still in force. The revenue authorities are parties to the suit and is binding on them. (iii) The Sub Registrar, Tiruporur and the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu filed I.A.No.248 of 2006 on 6.11.2006 in O.S.No.8667 of 2005 before the Sixth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to set aside the ex parte decree. They are the 10th and 11th defendants in O.S.No.8667 of 1985. The said I.A.No.248 of 2006 was dismissed on 6.11.2006 and no further proceedings were taken. Therefore, the Revenue Authorities are bound by the declaratory Decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 dated 11.11.1989 and cannot take a different plea now and call upon the parties to go to civil Court once again. (iv) The Tahsildar, Chengalpattu at the first instance in proceeding Na.Ka.No.3723/06/A2 dated 29.12.2006 has considered the objections filed by Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal and based on the various documents executed by Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal and also taking note of the opinion of the Government Pleader wherein it has been clarified that the suit O.S.No.1076 of 1999 has no bearing insofar as the judgment and decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985, recommended that the patta issued in the name of Mrs.P.Kasthuri Ammal should be cancelled and the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan is entitled to grant of patta. In the same manner, the Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.179/07 dated 29.1.2007 after detailed enquiry concurred with the recommendation of the Tahsildar for grant of patta to the petitioner and forwarded the same to the District Revenue Officer. In the proceedings O.Mu.No.5947/07/N4 dated 30.3.2007, the District Revenue Officer on considering the report of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer held as follows:- @vdnt Mtz';fs; mog;gilapYk;. ,e;neh;t[ bjhlh;ghf , Ujug;gpYk; bgwg;gl;l ePjpkd;wj; jPh;g;g[fspd; mog;gilapYk; tUtha; epiy Miz vz; 31y; cs;s TWfspd; mog;gilapy; ,e;neh;tpy; chpa eltof;if vLj;jpLkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,dptUk; fhy';fspy; ,k;khjphp ,d';fspy; epy clikg; gjpt[ nkk;ghL jpl;l fhyj;jpy; Vw;gl;l jtwpid rhp bra;jplf;nfhhp tUk; kDf;fspd; nghpy; chpa tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L jFjpapd; mog;gilapy; chpa eltof;if vLj;jpLk; bghUl;L rkh;g;gpj;jpl nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/@ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The specific direction in the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer set out above to the Revenue Divisional Officer is that he should decide the claim for patta in accordance with the BSO 31 of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue based on the records produced by the rival parties and the decision of the Courts. On remand, the Revenue Divisional Officer in his order dated 23.6.2007 in Na.Ka.No.179/2007, after considering the objections of the rival parties, came to hold that the claim of Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009, for patta in respect of same property, is based on purchase from different source, namely, representatives of the patta holder. In view of the above, they are directed to approach the civil Court for appropriate remedy. The above said finding is contrary to the direction to the order of the District Revenue Officer. (v) The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer directing the parties to go before the civil Court is based on a misreading of the declaratory decree passed in favour of the vendor of petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan which is in force. In any event, the Tahsildar, the 11th defendant in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 has filed an application to set aside the ex parte declaratory decree dated 11.11.1989 which was dismissed and against that order no appeal has been filed by the Revenue Authorities and therefore, the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 is binding on the authorities and in terms of BSO 31 of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue the second respondent herein is bound to accept the declaratory decree and grant the patta. (vi) The District Revenue Officer, the first respondent in both the writ petitions, while deciding the matter in appeal misconstrued the judgment passed in O.S.No.1076 of 1999, confirmed in A.S.No.555 of 2005. It has nothing to do with claim for title or right over property. It has no relevance insofar as patta proceedings. (vii) The said Authority while exercising the power under BSO 31 of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue restored the patta in favour of a dead person Gulam Rasool Sahib without taking into consideration the fact that the declaratory decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 is binding on the said Authority. The dismissal of the suit O.S.No.1076 of 1999 and the appeal is of no consequence as it has nothing to do with the title to the property in question. The restoration of patta in the name of the dead person Gulam Rasool Sahib is contrary to the BSO 31 of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue and the Authority ought not to have restored the patta in the name of a dead person in the light of the decree passed by a competent Civil Court which is binding on all persons concerned including respondents. Learned counsel for Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Saroja – vs. - Chinnusamy (dead) by LRs. and another https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in (2007)8 Supreme Court Cases 329 where the Apex Court held in paras 13, 15 and 16 as follows:- "13. It is well settled that an ex parte decree is binding as a decree passed after contest on the person against whom such an ex parte decree has been passed. It is equally well settled that an ex parte decree would be so treated unless the party challenging the ex parte decree satisfies the Court that such an ex parte decree has been obtained by fraud. Such being the position, we are unable to hold that Condition (iv) was not satisfied and accordingly it cannot be held that the principle of res judicata would not apply in the present case." "15. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the Madras High Court in Arukkani Ammal v. Guruswamy [(1987)100 LW 707)] which was also relied on by the first appellate Court. The Madras High Court in that decision observed as follows: (LW p.708, para 1) "It is also difficult to appreciate the view taken by the District Munsif that ex parte decree cannot be considered to be 'full decree on merits'. A decree which is passed ex parte is as good and effective as a decree passed after contest. Before the ex parte decree is passed, the Court has to hold that the averments in the plaint and the claim in the suit have been proved. It is, therefore, difficult to endorse the observation made by Principal District Munsif that such a decree cannot be considered to be a decree passed on merits. It is undoubtedly a decree which is passed without contents; but it is only after the merits of the claim of the plaintiff have been proved to the satisfaction of the trial Court, that an occasion to pass an ex parte decree can arise." "16. We are in full agreement with this view of the Madras High Court holding that a decree which is passed ex parte is as good and effective as a decree passed after contest. A similar view has also been expressed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bramhanand Rai v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (AIR 1987 ALL. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 100). However, the learned counsel for the appellant relying on a decision of the Madras High Court, namely, A.S.Mani v. Udipi Hari Niwas invited us to hold that the