LexS. RAMA IYER versus SUNDARASA PONNAPOONDAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S. RAMA IYER I'. SU'.'IDARASA PONNAPOONDAR February 4, 1966 [K. SUDBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND R.S. BACllAWAT. JJ.) Madras Cu/rfraring Tenants Pror.ctiori Act, (25 of 1955), s. 6li and Code of Ciril Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 115-Deci>io11 by Reven11e Court that petitioner wa\· not a cultjvating tenant-If revisable by Jliglr Court. The respondent. claiming to he the cultivating tenant of the appellant. filed an application before the Revenue Court under ""· 3 ( 3) of the C Madra. Culti\'&ting Tenants Protection Act, 1955, praying for a declara· tion that the amount deposited by him in the Court represented the correct amount of rent due from him to the appellant. The appellant denied that the respondent was his cultivating tenant. ·rhe Revenue Court held that the respondent was not the appellant's cultivating tenant. The High Court in a revision petition under s. 6B of the Act read with s. 115 of th<> Civil Procedure Code, held that the respondent was a cultivating tenant of the appellant and that the amount deposited represented the correct amount D due from him to the appellant. In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that the High Court bad no jurisdiction, in revision. to set aside the finding of the Revenue Court rh:H the re•pon<lcnt "V>a'i not the appellant\ cultivating tenant. HELD : The Revenue Court under the Act can exercise its juri1die· lion only if a relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant exists between the contending partk.-s. If its jurisdiction is challenged it must enqu:re into the existence of the preliminary fact and decide if it has jurisdiction. U by an erroneous decision on a question of fact or law touching its lurisdiction a subordinate court assumes a jurisdiction not vested in it by Jaw or fai1s to exercise a juri~diction so vested, its decision is not final and is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, the High Court had power to enquire into the correctn~ss of the Revenue Court's decisioM and on finding that the tenancy existed and that the Revenue Court had erroneously refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested ill it bys. 3(3), the High Court could set aside that decision under s. 115(b) of the Civil Procedure Code read withs. 6B of the Act. (447 H- 478 B; 478 D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 797 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1959 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 1282 of 1958. R. Ganaparhy Iyer. for the appellants. R. Thiagarajan, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B1cb1w1t, J. On April 24, 1958, the respondent claiming to be the cultivating tenant of the appellant in respect of certain lands in Manapparavaivattam, Nannilam Taluk deposited Rs. 462/- E F G H . . • A I c D E F G H RAMA IYER v. SUNDARASA (Bachawat, J.) 4 7 5 aSrent for 1367 fasli in the Revenue Court (the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer), Tanjore under s. 3(3) of the Madras Cultivat- ing Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Madras Act No. 25 of 1955) and filed an application before the Court praying for a declaration that the amount deposited represented the correct amount of rent due from him. The appellant denied that the respondent was his cultivating tenant. On July 31, 1958, the Revenue Court, Tanjore held that the respondent was not a cultivating tenant of the appel- lant and could not claim the benefit of s. 3(3) and dismissed the application. The respondent filed a petition in revision before the Madras High Court under s. 6-B of the Act read with s. 115 of th~ Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was a cultivating tenant of the appellant and by its order dated March 27, 1959, allowed the revision petition and declared that the amount deposited by the respondent represent- ed the correct amount due from him to the appellant. The appel' !ant now appeals to this Court by special leave. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the Revenue Court that the respondent was not a cultivating tenant was a finding of fact and the High Court had no jurisdiction to set it aside on revision. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that the finding was in respect of a collateral fact upon the existence of which the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court under s. 3(3) depended and the High Court had ample power to revise the f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.