The burden of proving that certain lands constitute an estate is upon the party who sets up the contention.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent herein for ejectment of the appellants from the land specified in the plaint schedule and for recovery of profits, past and future.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff was that the suit land, which is of an extent of 8 acres,, situated in B. S. No. 13 in Sattenagudam, was his swantakamatam land ; that the first defendant executed a lease in his favour, Exhibit A-1, on July 8, 1945, agreeing to pay rent of Rs. 30 per year and deliver the land at the end of the lease period of three years without notice ; that the plaintiff called upon the first defendant on july 1, 1948, to quit the land ; and that the first defendant sent a reply thereto alleging that the suit land was a ryoti land situated in an estate and that the plaintiff had no right to evict him.

( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. They pleaded that Exhibit A-1, the khata, dated 8th July, 1945, was not a true document. They raised the plea that the suit land formed part of an estate " as defined in the Madras estates Land Act and that, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 4 ) THE main questions which were debated in the lower Courts were : whether sattenagudam village was or was not an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act and, if so, whether the lands in suit were private lands as claimed by the plaintiff or ryoti lands as claimed by the defendants. There were other questions of a subordinate nature and they are no longer in issue. They may, therefore, be left out of consideration. The trial Court held that Sattenagudani village was an estate but that the suit lands were the private lands of the plaintiff and that the khata relied upon by the plaintiff was true. On these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit.

( 5 ) ON appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the village was not an estate. Alternatively he found that the lands were the private lands of the plaintiff. By virtue of these findings, the learned appellate Judge confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court.

( 6 ) IN this appeal, Mr. Lingayya Choudari, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants, argued that the findings reached by the lower appellate Court on the two main questions were erroneous. The dispute in this appeal is, therefore, confined to two questions ; first, whether the village is an estate under the Madras estates Land Act, and secondly, whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the lands are the private lands of the plaintiff, are correct or not. With regard to the first of the questions, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Exhibits 6-5, dated 3oth April, 1950, wherein the Inam settlement Officer held that the village was an estate, is final and conclusive on the question and that the lower appellate Court was in error in reaching a conclusion contrary to the one reached by the Settlement Officer. In developing this argument, the learned counsel for the appellants has taken a higher stand and argued that the decision of the Settlement Officer would even operate as res judicata between the parties in the present proceeding. This contention, it may be stated, is unsustainable. Section 64-A of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) act, which embodies the principle of res judicata, reads as follows :" (1) The decision of a Tribunal or Special Tribunal in any proceeding under this Act, or of a Judge of the High Court hearing a case under section 51 (2) on any matter falling within, its or his jurisdiction shall be binding on the parties thereto and persons claiming under them, in any suit or proceeding in a civil Court in so far as such matter is in issue between the parties or person s aforesaid in such suit or proceeding. (2) The decision of a civil Court (not being the Court of District Munsif or a Court of Small causes) on any matter falling within its jurisdiction shall be binding on the partie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document