Order.- The appellant before me challenges an order of remand. The appellant claims that he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the protection of Act XXV of 1955. The first appellate Court which remanded the suit for fresh trial has directed the trial Court to go into this question and give its finding. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that in view of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1969, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether a particular party is a cultivating tenant or not and that that question can be decided only by the hierarchy of officers appointed under the abovesaid Act. It is also contended that the Record Officer under the said Act has already entered the appellant as a cultivating tenant in the record concerned, that that order has been confirmed even by the revisional authority under the said Act and that therefore, the civil Court has to accept the position that the appellant is a cultivating tenant.

2. On behalf of the respondent-landlord, the contention is that under the provisions of the said Act, the Record Officer is only to prepare a register giving the name or names of the cultivating tenants, that there is no specific provision in the said Act authorising anyone to decide the question whether a particular party is or is not a cultivating tenant and that, therefore, the civil Court’s jurisdiction to entertain such a question is not ousted. It is also pointed out that under section 15 of the said Act, only a presumption arises regarding the correctness of the entry made by the Record Officer, that such presumption is a rebuttable one and that the said section itself contemplates an aggrieved party proving the contrary (in some other forum).

3. The question as to how far the provisions of Act X of 1969 oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the question whether a particular party is a cultivating tenant or not, is an important one which would arise in several litigations. In view of the importance of the question, I gave notice to the Advocates’ Association as well as the Bar Association and counsel represent the said two Associations also. It is agreed by all the counsel before me that there is no decision of this Court so far regarding the above question of ouster of jurisdiction of the civil Court by the provisions of the Act. Considering the importance of the question, I think it would be better if the same is decided by a Division Bench, so that there would be an authoritative pronouncement for the guidance of the Courts below. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is referred to be decided by a Division Bench.

U. Somasundaram, Advocate, for Appellant.

K. Sarvabhauman, Advocate, for Respondent.

V. Manivannan, the Assistant Government Pleader II for the Government Pleader.

M.R. Narayanaswamy, the Secretary, Advocates Association.

T.N.C. Srinivasavaradackari, the Secretary, Bar Association.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Veeraswami, C.J.- The question in. this case is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a particular person is a cultivating tenant or not under Madras Act X of 1969. A suit was instituted for deciding that question, which was dismissed on the ground that section 16-A barred the civil Court’s jurisdiction to decide that matter. But an appeal against that order succeeded with a direction that the matter should be disposed of afresh. The present appeal is against the order of remand by the lower appellate Court. When the matter came before N.S. Ramaswami, J., in the first instance, he felt that the question as to how far the provisions of Madras Act X of 1969 oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the question whether a particular party is a cultivating tenant or not, was an important one which would arise in several litigations. On that view, he gave notice to the Advocates’ Association., and Bar Association and desired that the matter should be decided by a Division Bench, and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document