LexS. VANATHAN MUTHURAJA versus RAMALINGAM ALIAS KRISHNAMURTHY GURUKKAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--~ \ S. VANATHAN MUTHURAJA v. RAMALINGAM ALIAS KRISHNAMURTHY GURUKKAL AND ORS. APRIL 3, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) Tamil Nadu Mi11or I11ams (Abolitio11 a11d Co11versio11 into Ryotwari • Act, 1963: Sectio11 8(2)(ii). lnitiatio11 of suo motu e11quiry by Tehsildar, for gra11t of Ryotwari Patta-Tehsi/dar fou11d that Ryotwa1i Patta was granted i11 favour of the I11stitution-Dismissal of appeal filed before Tlibunal---Co11sequently Patta gra11ted to l11stitutio11 became fi11ai-011 seco11d appeal Single Judge held that A B c by vi1tue of the provisions contained u11der the Act, the suit was 11ot mai11- D tai11abl~Appeal before Supreme Court-Held in this case, the Act concemed extinguishes the pre-existing right, creates new rights under the Act and requires Tribunals to e11quire into the rival claims and a f om1 of appeal has been provided agai11st the order of the primary authority-Thereby the 1ight and remedy made conclusive under the Act are given fi11ality by the orders passed under the Act-Thereby, by necessary implication, the jwisdiction of the civil E Court stands excluded. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ,' Sectio11 9. Civil Court-Jurisdiction of-When stands excluded--Presumptio11 p would be inf avour of jwisdiction-Exclusio11 would be an exceptio11-.Courts ge11erally constme the provisio11s st1ictly whe11 jwisdictio11 of Civil Cowts is claimed to be excluded-The Tamil Nadu Mi11or i11ams (Abolitio11 and Co11version illto Ryotwari) Act, 1963-Held, the Act provides for the jurisdic- tio11 of the Tribu11als in matters relating thereto a11d hierarchy of ap- peals/revisions are provided thereunder givi11g finality to the orders passed G thereundeT"-Thereby, by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cog11izance of the suits of civil nature covered u11der the la11d ref onn laws stand excluded giving 11ot only the fi11ality to the decisio11s of the Tribunal but also ensuring disposal of the matters by the T1ibwial and making the Ryotwari patta granted to the tiller of the soil conclusive. H 581 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R. A Vattichemkwu Village Panchayat v. N01i Venkatarama Deekshithulu & Ors., [1991) Supp. 2 sec 228, relied on State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, [1985] 4 sec 10, referred to. B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3039 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.83 of the Madras High Court in S.A. No. 222 of 1979. C S. Siva Subramaniam and R. Ayyam Pcrumal for the Appellant. S. Srinivasan for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : D This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, made on July 16, 1983 in Second Appeal No. 222/79. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to state all the facts. Suffice it to state that one Ayyasamy Gurukkal was common ancestor in respect of the suit property. He had four sons, namely, Annasamy, Subbiah, Sundara and Neelkanda. Ramani E is the grand-son of Ayyasamy Gurukkal who was impleaded as first defen- dant. The appellant had purchased his 1/3rd share in the property under the sale deed, Ex. A-6, dated 6.5.1967. Subbaiah Gurukkal having been died unmarried; Sundara Gurukkal and Neelkanda Gurukkal and 1/3rd share each; Sundara died leaving behind him four grand-sons, D-3 to D-6 p through his son Rajarathina, widow Dorai, D-7; and another son Ramalin- gam, D-2. Neelkanda died leaving behind him his widow, D-8 and daughter, D-9. His widow D-8 had sold her 1/3rd share to the plaintiff No. 1 under sale deed, Ex'.A-7, dated June 26, 1970. Initially, the plaintiff had filed OS No. 1848/67 for a declaration of title and injunction of the property purchased under Ex. A-6. Therein, it was held that though sale of un- G divided I/3rd share is valid, no injunction could be granted against the co-owners and, therefore, the suit came to be dismissed. After the purchase of the property under Ex. A-7, the OS No. 946/1972 came to be filed for partition of the 2/3rd share and separate possession thereof. The defen- dants pleaded in the written statement that the lands are service inam lands H and are burdened with service of performing pooja to the temple. Since ' - S.VANATIIANMUTHURAJAv. RAMALINGAM 583 Annasamy, eldest son of Ayyasamy Gurukkal had failed to perform the A duty, he lost his right to the property. Ultimate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.