Effect on pre-existing rights of Ryots and Zamindars.

This appeal is against the order of remand passed by the District Judge of West Tanjore in A.S. No. 205 of 1959 directing O.S. No. 437 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court of Pattukottai to be disposed of on its merits. The defendant is the appellant. One Karuppa Konar owned certain agricultural lands in Vathalaikadu village in the Tanjore District. The village was originally part of an inam estate and was notified and taken over by the Government under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948. Karuppa Konar died in 1948 leaving behind him his second wife Chellayee and six daughters through his pre-deceased first wife. On 7th January, 1955, Chellayee purported to execute a sale of the suit lands in favour of the respondent, who, on the strength thereof, instituted a suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the same from the appellant. The latter contested the claim stating that Karuppa Konar had even during his lifetime effected a partition of the suit property amongst the six daughters and that two of them had subsequently created an usufructuary mortgage in his favour which entitled him to remain in possession thereof. The appellant also relied on the circumstance that subsequent to the notification his mortgagor was granted a ryotwari patta in respect of the suit lands. The plea of the defendant was really two-fold: first, that by virtue of the grant of the patta and even otherwise his mortgagor had superior title to the properties, superior to that of the respondent, and second that as patta had been granted under the provisions of the Abolition Act in favour of his mortgagor, the Civil Court would have no further jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Amongst the several issues that were framed in the suit, issue 5 was “whether the suit was barred by Act XXVI of 1948 ?” That issue was tried as a preliminary issue by the learned District Munsif and he held that, on the notification of the estate the title of Chellayee, if any, had become extinguished and the appellant’s predecessor-in-title having received a patta in respect of the suit lands would have superior title. On that findings the suit was dismissed. The respondent took the matter on appeal. The learned District Judge held that the mere fact that the daughters obtained a ryotwari patta under the provisions of section 11 of the Abolition Act could not conclusively show that they had title to the property, that that question could be determined only after a proper adjudication of the antecedent title of the rival claimants and that in the circumstances the dismissal of the suit on the preliminary point could not be sustained. In that view, the appellate Court set aside the dismissal of the suit and directed its disposal on its merits. The present appeal contests the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Judge.

It is contended for the appellant that, on the abolition of an estate under section 3 of Act XXVI of 1948,the title of all persons interested in the lands situate in the village, namely, the Zamindar or Inamdar and also of the ryots, would be extinguished and the entire property having vested in the Government, it could grant patta to whomsoever it chose and that no other person except the one to whom the patta was given, could have any title to the land covered therein. On that assumption it was urged that the appellant deriving title as he did from the pattadar would have superior right to the property.

There is an obvious fallacy underlying the contention. Madras Act XXVI of 1948 was enacted for the acquisition of the rights of the landholders of certain estates in order to introduce the ryotwari tenure in the place of the pre-existing Zamindari or Inam tenure. Section 3 (a) and (b) provide that on notification the entire estate, freed from encumbrances, shall stand transferred to the Government and that rights and interests created in or over the estate shall cease and be determined. Clau