LexCHINNAMUTHU GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC. versus P. A. S. PERUMAL CHETTIAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
704 C::HINNAMUTHU GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC. v. P. A. S. P.EltUMAL CHETrIAR F e/Jru•ry Hi, 1 '70 [J. c. SHAH, K. s. HEGllE Am> A. N. GllOVER, JJ.] Madras Cultivating Tenants -,,..tection Act (Mad, 25 of 1955), ss. 3(2) (Ii) and 6A-Scope of. A I The respondent, who was the occupancy ryot of an inam village, filed a suit for eviction of his lessees, the appellants (who were the cultivating tenants) , and for possession of the land. The appellants set u, occupancy C rights in themselves as a defence. The lower courts and the High Court 'found that the appellants wilfully denied the title of the respondent. and decreed the suit. On the question of the jurisdiction of the civil ceurt to try the suit, HELD : Under s. 6A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, the civil court is iounll te transfer a suit for possession to the o Revenue Divisional Officer only if the defendant proves that he is a culti· vating tenant entitled to the ltenefits under the Act, that is, if he proves the existence of both the conllitioas, namely : (a) that he is a cultivatin1 tenant, and (b) that he is eatitlell te the llenefits unller the Act. Under s. 3(2)(d) of the Act, however, a tenant cannot claim the llenefits under the Act if he wilfully denies the title of the landlord. Therefore, as !Ao appellants became disentitled to the llenefits unller the Act, the civil court E was competent to try the suit. [706 D-F] The fact that the civil court has to decide initially some questions wi!hin the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court does not aft'eot the interpre- tation of s. 6A. [706 F-G] V. Kuppuswami &: Ors, v. Sri Subramaniaswami Devuthanam at Thiruvidakkazhi bv its Trustets K<nakasabhai Pillai and Muthuramalinga Chettiar &: Ors. (1958) I M.L.J. 208, approved. M. S. Rama~handra Sastrigal v. Kuppuswami Vanniar, [1961] I M.L.J. 335, referrci;t to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1116 to 1118 of 1966. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 2, 1965 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeals Nos. 299, 335 and 346 of 1961. S. Mchan. Kumaramangalam and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants (in all the appeals). D. Narsaraju, G. Narosimham and K. Jayaram, for respondent (in all the appeals) . F G H - :a c D E F G H CHINNAMUTHU v. PERUMAL (Grover, J.) 705 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. These three appeals by special leave arise out of three suits filed by the plaintiff for declaration of hi~ title to the lands described in the schedules attached to the plaints and for possession of those lands as a~so for. arrea~s of re~t and for. mes~e profits. The suit lands are situate m an mam village whicll 1s an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land .f>.ct (Act 1 of 1908) as originally enacted. The plaintiff claimU that he and his predecessors in title were ryots under the inaa- dars of the village and that the defendants were lessees aa.d were only under-tenants. The defence of the defendants who are appellants before us was that the plaintiff and his predecessor in title were land-holders and not ryots and that the defendants had occupancy rights by long possession and by virtue of the pro- visions of the aforesaid Act. The trial court, the lower appellate court and the High Court have negatived the contentions of the appellants. It has been concurrently found that the plaintiff and his predecessors were ryots under the inamdar and that the appellants were only under- tenants under leases granted by the predecessors in title of the plaintiff. In other words it has been held that the plaintiff is !he occupancy tenant and that the defendants were mere culti- vating tenants. In order to determine the point which has been pressed before us it is unnecessary to state other facts. The sole question on which arguments have been addressed is whether the civil court had jurisdiction to decree the suit in respect of possession in the presence of the provisions of tl1e Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 (Act XXV of 1955) hereinafter called the Act. Section 2(a) defines "cultivat- ing tenant" to mean a person who carries on personal cultivation on any land under a tenancy agreement and includes any person who continues in possession after the determination of the tenancy agreement as also the heirs of su~h person. According to the provisions of s. 3 no cultivating tenant shall b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.