Ramanujam, J.- All these eight appeals which have been filed on the basis of leave granted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arise out of a common judgment rendered by Venkataraman, J., in 8 appeals of which 5 are Second Appeals and 3 are Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals.

2. The Second Appeals arose out of O. S. Nos. 88 to 92 of 1968 filed for possession of certain properties, arrears of rent and future mesne profits on the file of the District Munsif, Pudukottai. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals arise out of three execution petitions filed for execution of the decrees obtained in another set of three suits, O. S. Nos. 103, 104 and 106 of 1965 on the file of the same District Munsif’s Court. Since the facts are more or less identical in all these matters, it is not necessary to deal with the facts in each case. All these suits related to certain vacant sites in the village of Avidainalla Vijayapuram. It is a whole inam village taken over by the Government with effect from 15th April, 1965 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, The sites involved in these cases are comprised in Survey No. 157/1 and 158 / 1 of the same village. As per the village records, Survey No. 157 / 1 is an old waste and S. No. 158 / 1 is a gramanatham. The entire village belonged to the landholder of the village, one Dorairaj, the respondent herein and before the said Act came into force, he had leased out the said sites to several persons, hereinafter referred to as tenants, and they had executed lease deeds agreeing to pay rent and also to deliver possession of the sites after removing the superstructures, if any, put up by them whenever called upon. After the expiry of the periods fixed in the various lease deeds executed by the tenants, the respondent issued quit notices to them and then filed several suits in the Court of the District Munsif, Pudukottai for recovery of possession along with mesne profits.

3. Three of such suits were O. S. Nos. 103, 104 and 106 of 1965. In O. S. Nos. 104 and 106 of 1965 decrees were passed by consent on 15th March, 1965 and 9th March, 1965 respectively on the tenants agreeing to deliver the properties within three months. In O. S. No. 103 of 1965, a decree for possession was passed by consent on 27th April, 1965. The respondent filed execution petitions, E. P. Nos. 117, 120, 121 of 1968 in O. S. Nos. 104, 106 and 103 of 1965 respectively. The tenants resisted these execution petitions inter alia on the ground that the decrees could not be executed because the village has been taken ever by the Government on 15th April, 1965 under the provisions of the Act, as such the landholder’s right in the entire estate including the suit sites had been extinguished except to the extent to which they were recognised under the Act, that under section 15 (4) and (5) of the Act, the superstructures put up by them as well as the sites on which the superstructure had been erected stood vested in the respective tenants, and that they were liable to pay the assessment as also the rent which they had been previously paying to the landholder only to the Government. In support of their contention they relied on the decision of Natesan, J., in Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam v. Doraiswamy.1 The executing Court, however, held that the notification of the Government under the Act had not brought about any change regarding the executability of the consent decrees passed in O. S. Nos. 104 and 106 of 1965 earlier to the date of the notification and that the decision of Natesan, J., will not apply to the facts of those cases. It therefore ordered delivery in E. P. Nos. 117 and 120 of 1968. So far as E. P. No. 121 of 1968 was concerned, the Court held that as the decree itself had been passed after 15th April, 1965, the notified date, it will operate as res judicata as against the tenant’s claim for benefit under the Act as he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document