1979 Supreme(Mad) 217

Madras High Court
VARADARAJAN
Chinnappa Gounder - Appellant
Versus
S.Seshadri Iyengar - Respondent
Decided On : 04/18/1979

Headnote:

MINOR INAMS ABOLITION ACT - EFFECT ON PLAINTIFFS' CASE OF TITLE - GRANT OF PATTAS TO DEFENDANTS - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - FINALITY OF ORDERS OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES - RELEVANCE OF DECISIONS ON ESTATES LAND ACT AND ESTATES ABOLITION ACT.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of 10.26 acres of land in Erode taluk. The defendants claimed to be in adverse possession of these properties from 1912 and denied that they have executed any lease deeds. They further contended that the decree in the former suit O.S. No. 46 of 1953 will not be binding on them. They further contended that there was no actual delivery of possession of the properties in pursuance of the said decree and that they have perfected their title to the suit properties by adverse possession for over the statutory period. They contended that the properties are inam properties and the lands have been notified under Madras Act 30 of 1963 and the ryotwari pattas Exs. B. 1 to B.3 have been issued to them under Section 8 (1) of that Act and the plaintiffs have lost their title to the properties and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They claimed to be in possession of 1/4th share in Items 1 and 2 of the suit properties. The 6th defendant also had executed the lease deed Ex. 23 dated 15-5-1965. The defendants were paying the rent up to 1967 and had committed default thereafter and later denied the title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit (O.S. No. 676 of 1968) in these circumstances for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same. Subsequently, they filed O.S. No. 678 of 1968 for recovery of mesne profits of Rs. 1795 for three years before the suit in respect of the suit properties.

Finding of the Court:

The learned District Munsif, Erode, tried both the suits jointly and found that the decree in O.S. No. 46 of 1953 is binding on all the defendants, that actual possession was taken in pursuance of the decree, that the 6th defendant was in possession and is a necessary party, that the inam was a personal inam granted to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, that the inam has been enfranchised and the properties ceased to be inam properties, that the Civil Court has jurisdiction, that the patta proceedings were pending before the Inam Abolition Tribunal and that the leases are true. The trial Court also found that O.S. No. 678 of 1968 is not barred by limitation. Upon these findings, the learned District Munsif, Erode, decreed both the suits with costs. In the appeals filed by defendants, some documents were admitted as additional evidence and marked as Exs. B.4 to B. 36. Exs. B.4 and B.5 are the certified copies of the decree and judgment dated 30-11-1971 passed in C.M. A. No. 148 of 1970 on the file of the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs against the order granting ryotwari patta to the defendants. Exs. B.6 and B.7 are the certified copies of the decree and Judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 166 of 1970 on the file of the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the grant of patta to the defendants under Section 8 (1) of Act 30 of 1963. Exs. B.8 to B.36 were produced to show that the defendants were in possession from 1916 onwards. The learned Subordinate Judge, Erode who heard the appeals jointly confirmed the findings of the trial Court that the decree in O.S. No. 46 of 1953 is binding on all the defendants, that actual delivery was taken in execution of the decree and that the lease deeds are true. He found that the defendants have not perfected their title by adverse possession and that the lands have been enfranchised and they have lost the inam character, following the decision in Thiruvaduthural Adheenam v. State of Madras (1970) 1 Mad LJ 523, which has dissented from K. Satyamurthi v. State (AIR 1971 Mad 385) and could not have been notified under Madras Act 30 of 1963 and that the grant of ryotwari pattas to the defendants does not oust the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. On these findings, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the trial court's decrees with costs.

Issues: Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the grant of pattas to the defendants under Section 8 (1) of Madras Act 30 of 1963.

Ratio Decidendi: The decisions of the authorities constituted under Madras Act 30 of 1963 are only for the purpose for which the enactment was passed, namely conversion of the minor inams tenure into a ryotwari tenure and that the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain suits for declaration of title to the erstwhile minor inam lands which had become ryotwari under that Act, notwithstanding the fact that finality is attached to the orders of the appropriate authorities constituted under the provisions of that Act.

Final Decision: Both the appeals succeed and are allowed and the suits are dismissed, but without costs throughout in the circumstances of the case.