STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC. versus RAMALINGA SAMIGAL MADAM ETC.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 01-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

63 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC. 
A 
v. 
RAMALINGA SAMIGAL MADAM ETC. 
May 1, 1985 
B 
[V,D, TULZAPURKAR AND V. KHALID, JJ.J 
Jurisdiction of the civil court when and under what circumstances barred 
-Civil Court's jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land in respect where of 
a Ryot has sought a Ryotwari Patta under section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates 
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is ousted or barred under 
C 
section 64-C of that Act, read with section 3(16)(a), (b) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu 
Estate Lands Act. 
Under the Tamil Nadu Estates' (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) 
Act, 1948, estates of several Zamindars including the Sivaganga Estates 
and Ramnad Zamindari estates were abolished and vested with the Government. 
D 
In Civil Appeal No. 474of1971, the respondent religious Math, in respect of 
the land admeasuring 3.55 acres being a portion of survey No. 114 obtained 
from the erstwhile Zamindar of Sivaganga und~r an (Order of Assignment 
(Ex. A-1) dated 29.1.1938 Kudi right (i.e. Right to cultivate), subject to the 
payment of a nominal nuzzur of Re. 1 per acre and an annual rent of Re. 1 
per acre beside cesses and a Teervapat Cowie Patta issued in favour of its 
trustee Sutha Chaitnya Swamigal. After the abolition of the Zarnindari estates, 
E 
the religious Math applied on 25.11.53 for Ryotwari Patta in respect of the 
said 1and to the Assistant Settlement Officer, who, without reference to the 
respondent passed an order (Ex. B-4) on 25.6.54 that Survey No. 114 was not 
a ryoti land on the notified date but had been registered as Proromboke (village 
communal land) and, therefore, no one was entitled to Ryotwari Patta in 
respect of it. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed a Civil Suit o.S. 
No. 184 of 1959 in the Court of District Munsiff at Manamadurai for decla-
F 
ration of its title on the basis of its long and uninterrupted possession prior to 
1938 as also under Ex. A-1 issued to it by the Zamindar and right to continue 
in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, subject to payment of Ryotwari 
or other cess to. be imposed by Government without any interference from the 
Government. The appellant State resisted the suit on merits by contending 
that the suit land was communal land and that the assignment or grant by the 
G 
Zamindar in favour of plaintiff-Madam was invalid as well as by raising a 
technical plea that the decision of the Additional Settlement Officer that the 
suit Iand was poromboke and not ryoti land was final and the Civil Court's 
jurisdiction to decide that question was barred under section 64-C of the 
Act. 
The Trial Court as well as the Sub Judge ln appeal accepted the res-
pondent's case on merits by holding that the suit land was a ryoti land and 
that the assignment of Kudi right therein by the Zamindar in respondent's 
H 
A 
B 
c 
f 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] SUPPL. s.c.R. 
favour was valid and negativing the technical plea of want of jurisdiction 
decreed the suit by granting the necessary declaration and injunction protecting 
respondent's pos5ession and enjoyment of the suit land. In second appeal 
preferred by the State of Ta1r.ii Nadu to the High Court the plea of lack of 
jurisdiction in the light of section 64~C of the Act was referred to a Division 
Bench who negatived the contention and dismissed the appeal. The Division 
Bench took the view that there was no provision under section 11 read with 
proviso to cl. (d) of section 3 of the Act for the ascertainment of the character 
of the land {whether it was ryoti land or communal land) and that the decision 
of the Settlement Officer whether the land is ryoti or not is a11 incidental one 
merely for the purpose of granting the Ryotwari Patta and Civil Court'sjuris· 
diction to adjudicate upon the nature of the land when that aspect is specifically 
put in issue, is not taken away under section 64-C of the Act and that the 
respondent's suit was not For obtaining a ryotwari patta in its favour (which 
matter lay within the powers and jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer) but the 
suit was for injunction restraining the appellant from disturbing respondent's 
possession and enjoyment of the suit land on the basis of its title and long and 
and uninterrupted possession and such relief the Civil Court could obviously 
grant. 
Jn Civil Appeal No. 1633 of 1971 after an adverse order had been passed 
by the Settlement Officer to the effect that the la

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