JUDGMENT. — The defendant in the two suits (O.S. Nos. 608 and 663 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Chingleput) has preferred these two second appeals. The question in both the cases is whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) (Act XL of 1971), hereinafter referred to as the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act, and the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act (XXXVIII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as the Kudiruppu Protection Act, and whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits.

2. One Rajaram Naidu and others owned certain lands extending 2.89 acres of which the suit site (3 cents) is part. The defendant became a tenant of the suit site under the above owners as evidenced by Exhibit A-7 dated 20th March, 1973, which says that he had become tenant even two years prior to the date of the document. It is now common ground that he so became tenant in or about March, 1971. He put up a superstructure and has been enjoying the same. One Balasubramaniam purchased the land (including the suit site) under Exhibit A-3 dated 4th December, 1973. He sold half of the suit site (1½ cents) to the plaintiff in one of the suits and other half (1½ cents) to the plaintiff in the other suit, under the sale deeds, Exhibits A-1 and A-2, both dated 5th December, 1973. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant attorned the tenancy to them but failed to pay the rent and began asserting hostile title. They gave notice terminating the tenancy. The defendant totally denied the tenancy in his reply notice and stated that he had never paid rent to any one. He contended that the site is part of a poramboke and that neither the plaintiffs nor the vendor had any title to the same.

3. The plaintiffs filed the two suits. The defendant in his written statement reiterated his stand in the reply notice and contended that the sale deeds are sham and nominal and bogus. It was also contended that the defendant had an agreement for sale with the prior owners and that he was in possession in part performance of the contract. The written statement concluded by saying that the defendant was entitled to protection under the Kudiyiruppu Protection Act.

4. All these contentions were negatived by the trial Court. It also negatived the contentions put forward by the defendant at the trial that by virtue of the provisions contained in the Kudiyiruppu Protection Act and the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The defendant filed two appeals against the common judgment and decrees in the suit, but they failed. Hence these two second appeals by him.

5. The point raised by Mr. T. V. Ramanujum’ learned counsel for the defendant (appellant) is that on the case of the plaintiffs and the findings of the Courts below that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit site. Section 3 of the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act would confer title on the defendant to the same (3 cents), that in any event the defendant would be entitled to the benefits of the Kudiyiruppu Protection Act and that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits.

6. The first question is how far the provisions of the two Acts exclude the jurisdiction of the civil Court. The Kudiyiruppu Protection Act when it was originally enacted was meant to. be a temporary provision. Sub-section (3) of section 1 as it originally stood said that the Act shall be in force for a period of nine years and later it was amended to the effect that it: shall be in force for a period of twelve years. The said Act came into force on 29th, November, 1961 and it had force only up to 1973. Subsequently, that is, by Tamil Nadu Act (XXIII of 1975) the Kudiysruppu Protection Act was re-enacted as a permanent measure. In the meanwhile, the other Act, namely, the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act came into force with effect from 24th December, 1971.

7. Under this Act owner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document