Back
Madras High Court
SADASIVAM,V. RAMASWAMI
State of Madras - Appellant
Versus
Balamanavala Reddiar - Respondent
Decided On : 08/31/1971
RYOTI LANDS - SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - FINALITY OF ORDERS OF BOARD OF REVENUE UNDER SECTION 64-C OF MADRAS ACT XXVI OF 1948 - RES JUDICATA - WRIT PETITIONS DISMISSED ON MERITS - WHETHER OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN SUBSEQUENT SUITS.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Madras represented by the District Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai has preferred these appeals App. Nos. 427 of 1964 and 446 of 1964, against the decrees and judgments in O. S. No. 26 of 1962 and O. S. No. 13 of 1962 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sivaganga, decreeing the suits for declaration and injunction as prayed for with costs.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Subordinate Judge found that the suit lands are ryoti lands and not tank bed and rejected the contentions of the appellant that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits, that by virtue of Section 64-C of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the decision of the Settlement Officer that the suit lands are tank bed lands is final and cannot be questioned in any Court of law and that the decision of this Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondent-plaintiff in each of these appeals will operate as res judicata and in the result decreed the suits as prayed for with costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suits? 2. Whether the decision of the Settlement Officer that the suit lands are tank bed lands is final and cannot be questioned in any Court of law? 3. Whether the decision of this Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondent-plaintiff in each of these appeals will operate as res judicata?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suits as the finality of orders under Section 64-C of the Abolition Act are final only for the purposes of that Act and that they have no effect in a suit for declaration of title. 2. The decision of the Settlement Officer whether a land is a ryoti land or not is an order passed in summary proceedings solely for the purpose of granting ryotwari patta and hence not final. 3. The decision in the writ proceedings cannot operate as res judicata in these suits as the limited scope of these writ petitions is clear from the several observations made in the judgments in the writ petitions.
Final Decision: The decrees and judgments in O. S. Nos. 13 and 26 of 1962, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sivaganga, are correct and they are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed with costs.
2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader mainly argued the appeals on two grounds, namely, that the finding of the Settlement Officer that the suit lands are tank bed lands is final and cannot be questioned in a Civil Court and that the decision of this Court in the writ petitions filed by the plaintiffs will operate as res judicata. On the evidence in this case, there can be no doubt that the learned Subordinate Judge has correctly found that the suit lands are ryoti lands.
3. We shall first consider the character of the suit lands in O. S. 26 of 1962, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sivaganga Ex. A-l is a registration copy of a lease deed dated 27-10-1901 executed by Thirumania Pillai in favour of Alagirisami Reddiar. It is clear from the recitals in the document that Alagirisami Reddiar purchased the property in a Court auction held on 10-10-1896 in execution of the decree in O. S. 1083 of 1896, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Manamadurai. It has been produced by the plaintiff as his document of title and his son-in-law P. W. 1 Sundararaja Reddiar referred to it in his evidence, though he does not personally know about the transaction. The property covered by Ex. A-l is described as lying to the north of Peria Kanmoi sluice and the upper bund of kanmoi and east of the kanmoi bund. The total extent of the land is given as 16½ kulis in inam paimash No. 73, Ex. A-2 is a registration copy of a sale deed dated 28-6-1909 executed by one Annamalai Chettiar in favour of Thiruvengada Reddiar, the father of P. W. 1 Sundaraja Reddiar, and Subba Reddiar, the father of the plaintiff P. W. 2 Balamanaval Reddiar. It is clear from the recitals in the document that the property was purchased by Somasundara Chettiar vagaira in a sale held in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 1900 of 1933 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai. The sale deed in favour of Annamalai Chettiar has not been produced in this case. Though it is clear from the description of the property that it relates to Paimash No. 73. it is also described as lying south of the punja lands of Alagiriswami Reddiar. evidently referred to in Ex. A-1. The property is described as lying to the north and east of the kanmoi bund. Ex. A-3 is a registration copy of a sale deed executed by Subba Reddiar in favour of his Balamanavala Reddia
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
