Back
J.R.MUDHOLKAR, K.SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL
Athimanathaswami Devasthanam – Appellant
Versus
K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar – Respondent
Key Points: - The Civil Court is not competent to entertain suits by a ryot regarding rent and ejectment; such suits are triable by a Revenue Court under S. 189(1) and Schedule Part A, serial Nos. 3 and 11 (!) (!) (!) - The letting of land to a ryot by Pandarasannidhi is not necessarily an alienation requiring Board sanction under S. 76; mere admission of ryot possession can confer permanent occupancy rights under S. 6 without converting into a lease exceeding five years (!) (!) (!) - The High Court correctly directed returning the plaint to present to the proper Court due to lack of jurisdiction in Civil Court; cross-objection regarding rent adjustment was allowed to stand as part of the appeal (!) (!) (!) - The lands in suit were held to be cultivable ryoti land, not private iruvaram or non-cultivable, and the respondent was held to be a ryot (!) (!) (!) - The decision discusses the necessity of Board sanction under S. 76 for leases exceeding five years, and the interpretation that letting under S. 6 does not automatically require such sanction (!)
Judgment
RAGUBAR DAYAL, J.: This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court of Madras under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
2. The appellant, Sri Athmanathaswams Devasthanam, of Avidayarkoli in Tanjore District, represented by hereditary trustee Subrahmanya Pandra Sannadhi Atheena Karthar of Thiruvavaduthurai Atheenam, hereinafter called the Devasthanam, is the landholder of three villages. It sued the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,415-8-6 as damages for use and occupation of the lands in suits for faslis 1357 to 1360 at Rs. 3-9-0 per acre per annum. The respondent was let into possession of the land by a previous trustee of the Devasthanam in August 1944 when he was being pressed by the State authorities for reclaiming the land and putting it to cultivation in connection with the Grow More Food Campaign launched by the Government of the country during World War II. The total land in all the three villages let out to the respondent was about 727 acres. The plaintiff contended, inter alia, that the lands in suit were private iruvaram lands and not ryoti lands, that the transaction by which the respondent was let into possession was not binding on the pre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
