Patta granted is liable to be questioned in a suit.

This batch of appeals is filed by the plaintiffs in the suits against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore remanding the suits for fresh disposal after giving a finding on the question whether the suit lands are the private lands of the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title.

A batch of suits was filed before the District Munsif, Pattukottai for possession, damages for use and occupation, and future mesne profits. According to their plaintiffs, the properties described in the plaints originally belonged to the Zamindar of Papanad and were his private lands. The Zamindar was in enjoyment of the lands by leasing out under terminable leases. After the abolition of the Zamindari and the taking over of the estate on 3rd January, 1951, the Zamindar applied for patta under section 12 of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948), and a ryotwari patta was granted by the first Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Pattukottai, to the Zamindar. An appeal was preferred by some of the defendants to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, but that appeal was dismissed. The plaintiffs purchased the suit lands and some other lands from the Zamindar under registered sale deeds, dated 19th September, 1959, and became the owners of the lands. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were held to be not cultivating tenants in the Revenue Court, and therefore they are persons in possession without any legal rights and are trespassers in the eye of law. On these allegations the plaintiffs filed the suits for possession and for mesne profits.

The defendants resisted the suits. They raised various contention, they contended, that the lands were ryoti and the defendants and their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of these lands and were never let into possession by the Zamindar in pursuance of lease agreements. They also denied that the lands were private lands of the Zamindar. They also stated that patta was granted to the Zamindar without the knowledge of the defendants, and no proper notice was published in the village. The validity of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was questioned as being made ex parte without going into the merits. They also submitted that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta under section 15 of the Abolition Act is not final and binding on them.

On these contention the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit properties?

2. Whether the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is sham and nominal?

3. Whether the patta granted to plaintiff’s vendor is final and conclusive and what is its efficacy?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any mesne profits, and if to so what amount?

5. Whether the description of suit property is correct?

6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

The trial Court found all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suits as prayed for.

On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore remanded the suits on the ground that the patta granted to the plaintiffs by the Assistant Settlement Officer under section* 15 of Act XXVI of 1948 is not final and conclusive, and liable to be questioned in a civil Court. He directed the trial Court to record a finding as to whether the suit lands are the private lands of the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title.

It was contended on behalf of the appellants by Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, learned Counsel, that the patta granted to the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title under section 15 of Act XXVI of 1948 is final and conclusive regarding the nature of lands, namely, that the lands are private lands of the Zamindar, and the Civil Court is not entitled to go into that question. Therefore according to the learned Counsel, the order of remand is unsustainable in law. Under section 3 of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948, with effect on and from the notified date the e