L. R. GANAPATHI THEVAR versus SRI NAVANEETHASWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM, SIKKI

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 01-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

L. R. GANAPATHI 1HEVAR 
v. 
SRI NA V Ai"IEETHASWARASWAMI DEV ASTHANAM, 
SIKKI 
August I , 1968 
[R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. fuGDE, JJ.J 
Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908, ss. 6(1) and 8(5)-scope of. 
Madras 
C.~u/1ivating Tenanrs Protection Act 19 'cultivating tenant'-
1neaning of. 
The respondent was 1he O\>o'Tlcr of the suit properlies leased 
to 
the 
appellants by lease deeds executed in 1945 and 1946 and sued the appel· 
!ant for thfir possession on various grounds. 
The appellant claimed an 
'occupancy right' in the properties ancl pleaded that he could not be evicted 
in view of 1he protection afforded to him by s. 6 of the Madras Estates 
Land Act I of J 908. The Trial Court upheld his contention and dismissed 
the •uit but the High Court allowed an appeal holding that as the case fell 
within the scope of s. 8(5) of the Act, the appellant was not entitled to 
the benefit of s. 6; it therefore remanded the case for trial on other issues. 
During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the Madras Culti-
vating Tenants Protection Act came into force and therefore 1hc appellant 
claimed hcforc the Trial Court after remand that he was a 'cultivating 
tenant' within the incaning of the Act and could not, for this additional 
reason, be evicted. Hoth the Trial Court as \\'ell as the High Court rejected 
the appellant's contention'\. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that although s. 8(5) of ~ladras Act I of 1908 may govern the present 
case, but when s. 8(5) says that the land·holder shall--'have the right not· 
withstanding anything contained in the Act for a period oJ twelve years 
from 1he commencement of the \fadra.s E.stale Land (Illird Amcndmcn1) 
Act, 1936 of admitling any per.son 10 the posse.'>'\ion of .such Jand on 
such tc'rm.s as may he agreed upon hcl\\'ecn them". it merely means th:1t 
for the period of tweh·e years. the tenants on the land cannot claim the 
benefit of s. 6( 1) of the Act but they get those rights immediately after 
lhe twelve years period (.; over; furlhcrmorc, that s. 6( I) is the main 
orovi~on; it has general application and contains the policy and purpc:J6e 
of the law: s. 8(5) is an exception~ therefore s. 6(1) .should be construed 
liberally \\1hile s. 8(5) should he strictly construed with a view to advance 
the purpose of the l<l\V. 
ft was also contended that the Trial Coun as 
well as the High C'-0urt were in error in holding that the decision of the 
High C..ourt prior to the remand \\'as bindtng on both courts and could not 
be reagitated before then1. 
HELD : D.ismissing the appeal. 
(i) While s. 6( I) 
i~ suhjcct to the provisions of the Act. s. 8(5) Wi 
not controlled by any other provision of the Act. 
Therefore if the case 
falls both withins. 6(1) as \\'ell ass. 8(5), then the govcrnin~. provision 
will be s. 8(5) and nots. 6( I). A' the pre.sent case fell within s. 8(_1) 
it necessarily follo\\'Cd that it was taken 
out of the scope of s. 6( l). 
1513 C-DJ 
From tl1e language of -~. 8( 5), it is not possihle to hold lhat the con-
lract irsclf is exhausted or stands superseded at the 
end of the 
twelve 
year period mentioned therein. 
(514 C-D! 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GANAPATHI v. NAVANEETHASWARASWAMI (Hegde, J.) 
50~ 
Executive Officer v. L. K. Ganapathi Thevar, (1955) 2 M.L.J., 112;. 
and Sri Navaneethaswuraswami Devasthanam Sikki, represented by its 
Executive Officer v. P. Swaminatha Pillai, I.L.R. (1958) Mad. 921; referred 
to. 
Muminia Damudu and Ors. v. Datila Papayyaraju Garu by 
Muktyar 
Putravu Ramalin!faswami and Ors., 
A.LR. 
1944 
Mad. 
136; 
Korda 
Atchanna v. Jayanti Seetharamaswami, A.I.R. 
1950 Mad. 
357; 
Thota 
Seshayya and six Ors. v. Madabushi Vedanta Narasimhacharyulu, I.LR. 
l955 Mad. 1151 and Vadranam Ramchandrayya and Anr. v. Madahhushi 
Ranganavakamma, (1957) 2 Andhra Weekly Reports, p. 114 distinguished. 
(ii) On the facts found in the present case, the appellant could not be 
considered a 'cultivating tenant' after the amendment of the definition of 
a 'cnltivating tenant' in the Madras Cultivating Tenants Act, 1955, because 
of the addition of the explanation; in order to 'fall within the definition 
of 'cultivating tenant', a person should 
carry 
on personal cultivation 
which again requires that he should contribute physical labonr. 
The nse 
of physical labour includes physical strain, the use of muscl"" and sinews. 
Mere supervision of work, or maintaining of accoun

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.