N.S. Ramaswami, J- This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of Alagiriswami, J. in Second Appeal No. 607 of 1963. Defendants 1, 2 and 5 are the appellants before the learned Judge as well as before us. The only question that falls for determination in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the civil Court cannot go into the question of title in respect of the suit land in view of the fact that the land being part of an erstwhile estate, the Settlement Officer had decided the question as to who among the rival claimants was entitled to patta for the said land, under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The plaintiffs in the suit are the legal representatives of one Karian. The suit is one for declaration of title and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession of the same. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land which, as already said, was part of an estate (Thathavalli Estate which has since been taken over under the Act) was ryoti land, that Karian owned the land and that the plaintiffs succeeded to his estate. The family of the first defendant was formerly the land-holder of the said estate. However, the estate is said to have been sold in Court auction prior to the coming into force of the Act and a third party had purchased the estate. After the abolition of the estate under the Act, the plaintiffs as Well as the first defendant claimed patta for the suit land under section 11 of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer issued patta to the first defendant and it was confirmed by the Settlement Officer. The plaintiffs’ claim for patta has not been granted.

3. In the present suit, the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have title to the suit property. The trial Court, however, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunction on the ground that on the date of suit they were not in possession. The first appellate Court decided that the plaintiffs were in possession and, therefore, by virtue of their title to the property, they were entitled to the relief of injunction also. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Alagiriswami J., who heard the second appeal has concurred with the finding of the first appellate Court regarding the question of title and possession and that is no longer in dispute.

4. However, Mr. A. Sundaram Iyer, the learned Counsel for the appellants (defendants 1, 2 and 5) raises the contention, which had been raised before the learned Judge who heard the second appeal and rejected by him, that by virtue of section 56 of the Act, the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer confirmed by the Settlement Officer that the first defendant was entitled to issuance of patta to him would debar the plaintiffs from maintaining the present suit in the civil Court. According to the learned Counsel, section 56 (1) (c) should be read with section 11 of the Act under which ryotwari patta is to be granted and once the settlement authorities grant a ryotwari patta to one of the rival claimants, that decision is final and the defeated claimants cannot go to the civil Court as in the present case. Section 56 which has since been omitted from the Act by Madras Act XXXIV 1958 ran as follows:

“56 (1), Where after an estate is notified a dispute arises as to (a) whether any rent due from a ryot for any fasli year is in arrears or (b) what amount of rent is in arrears or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is, the dispute shall be decided by the Settlement Officer;

(2) Any person deeming himself aggrieved by any decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-section (1) may, within two months from the’ date of the decision or such further time as the Tribunal may in its discretion allow, appeal to the Tribunal; and its decision shall be final and not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law.”

5. According to the learned Counsel, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document