Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(Mad) 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Veeraswami, C.J. and V. Raghavan, J.
Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Swami Devasthanam, Devakottai, through its trustees S.T.M.V.R. Murugappa Chettiar
Versus
Duraiswami Nadar
L.P.A. No. 50 of 1966.
Decided On : 09 February 1971

Advocates:
K. Parasaran, for Appellant.
A. Sundaram Iyer and S.V. Jayaraman, for Respondents.

The vesting of a building and site under section 18 (4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, occurs only where the ownership of both the building and the site is coalesced in the same person upon the notification.

Headnote:
MADRAS ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 18 (4) AND (5) - VESTING OF BUILDING AND SITE - INTERPRETATION - POSSESSION OF SITE BY LANDHOLDER AFTER NOTIFIED DATE - RIGHT TO RENT.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a landholder, filed a suit to recover rent from the first respondent in respect of a site let out to him for building purposes. The tenancy commenced prior to 1948. The site was situate in a village which constituted an estate and was notified and taken over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The first respondent claimed that under the provisions of the Act, the suit site along with the building had vested in him, and the title of the appellant as a landholder got extinguished.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant had lost its right on the notification made under the provisions of the Act. It also held that the first respondent was not estopped from disputing the title of the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the building and site vested in the first respondent under section 18 (4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948? 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to claim rent from the first respondent after the notified date?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 18 (4) of the Act vests every building other than those referred to in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) in the person who owned it immediately before the notified date. 2. Sub-section (5) of the Act defines 'building' as including the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. 3. Read together, sub-sections (4) and (5) contemplate a transfer of the ownership of the site to the owner of the building only where both the building and the site belong to the same person upon the notification. 4. Where the ownership of the building and the site is not coalesced, there will be no vesting under sub-section (4). 5. The appellant was entitled to demand and collect rent from the first respondent if it continued in possession of the site undisturbed by the rightful owner, if any, after the notified date.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts and remanded the suit to the trial court for a finding on whether the appellant continued to be in possession of the site after the notified date. If the trial court found that the appellant was in possession, the suit was to be decreed as prayed for. Otherwise, the suit would be dismissed.

Veeraswami, C.J.- This appeal by the quondam landholder is from a judgment of Natesan, J., reported in Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam, Devakottai, by its trustees v. Duraiswamy Nadar1. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinaygar Devasthanam, Devakottai, by its trustees to recover rent from the first respondent in respect of a site let out to him for building purposes. The tenancy commenced prior to 1948. The site is situate in a village which constituted an estate. That was notified and taken over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. On that date, the building continued in the first respondent’s occupation. There is no dispute that on the notified date, the Devasthanam was the landholder. The defence was that under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, the suit site along with the building had vested in the first respondent, and the title of the appellant as a landholder got extinguished. There appears to have been a question of jurisdiction raised, but it is no longer before us. The first appellate Court held that the Devasthanam had lost its right on the notification made under the provisions of the Act. It also held that the first respondent was not estopped from disputing the title of the Devasthanam. Natesan, J., dismissed the second appeal, he being or the view that immediately on the notification the appellant, the quondam landholder, had lost its interest in the site, which is vested in the Government. The learned Judge, therefore, considered that the appellant was not entitled to claim any rent for the site from the first respondent.

2. It is contended for the appellant that the real effect of section 18 (4) was to vest the building in it. This is on the view that as mentioned by sub-section (5) of the section, building includes the site, and, therefore, whoever owned the building became owner of the site. In our view, this contention cannot be accepted. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 18 reads:

“(4): Every building other than a building referred to in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall, with effect on and from the notified date, vest in the person who owned it immediately before the date; but the Government shall be entitled, for each year commencing with the fasli in which the estate is notified.

(i) in every case, to levy the appropriate assessment thereon ; and

(ii) in the case of a building which vests in a person other than a landholder, also the payments which such person was liable immediately before the notified date to make to any landholder in respect thereof, whether periodically or not and whether by way of rent or otherwise, in so far as such payments may accure due in or after the notified date.

(5) In this section ‘building’ includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto.”

3.Theresult of sub-section (5), to our mind is that the definition contained therein when incorporated in sub-section (4) would have this consequence, that, if the building as well as the site on which it stands both belong to the same person upon the notification, both of them will vest in that person. That, we think is the true scope of sub-sctions (4) and (5) read together. These provisions do not contemplate a transfer of the ownership of the site to the owner of the building where it had not already belonged to him. Unless there is a coalescence of the ownership of the building as well as of the site on which it stands, there will be no vesting under sub-section (4). That is the view Natesan, J., took and we agree with him.

4. But that will not conclude against the appellant. On our view of the effect of sub-sections (4) and (5) read together it would follow that clause (ii) of subsection (4) will have no application to the instant case, which, in our opinion, cannot be relied on by the State to collect the rent. If the State has any right to it, that is to be found from the general vesting under sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1971 Supreme(Mad) 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASK. Veeraswami, C.J. and V. Raghavan, J.Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Swami Devasthanam, Devakottai, through its trustees S.T.M.V.R. Murugappa ChettiarVersusDuraiswami NadarL.P.A. No. 50 of 1966.Decided On : 09 February 1971

The vesting of a building and site under section 18 (4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, occurs only where the ownership of both the building and the site is coalesced in the same person upon the notification.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Veeraswami, C.J. and V. Raghavan, J.
Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Swami Devasthanam, Devakottai, through its trustees S.T.M.V.R. Murugappa Chettiar
Versus
Duraiswami Nadar
L.P.A. No. 50 of 1966.
Decided On : 09 February 1971