Ramachandra Iyer, J.-

This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, in O.A. No. 18 of 1958, declaring that the inam village of Komarapalayam in Tiruchengode Taluk of Salem District is not an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.

The appellants claim to be ryots in the village. Alleging that they were only holding under a lease which had expired, the inamdars filed O.S. No. 62 of 1955 in the District Munsif’s Court, Sankari at Salem, for eviction and allied reliefs. The appellants resisted the claim of the inamdars pleading that they were entitled to occupancy rights in the lands as the village of Komarapalayam was an estate, and that the lands held by them were ryoti. While the suit was pending, respondents 1 and 2, two out of five co-sharer inamdars of the village, filed an application under section 3 (1) of Madras Act XXX of 1956 before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, for a declaration that Komarapalayam village was not an estate as defined’ by section 3 (2) of Madras Act I of 1908. The appellants, however, were not made parties to the application, the 1st respondent herein, the State of Madras, being the only party. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the inamdars, and granted the declaration sought. Aggrieved by the declaration granted by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeal, purporting to do so under section 7 of Madras Act XXX of 1956.

At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the respondents took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. It was contended that the appellants who were not parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal, could not now challenge the decision. Reliance was placed on the provisions of section 6 to show that the appellants could, if they so chose, have appeared and put forward their case before the Tribunal, and that not having availed themselves of that opportunity, they should be held to be precluded from impugning the decision.

A right to appeal is a creature of statute. If under the provisions of a statute a person has a right to appeal, that right could not be denied to him for the reason that he might or could have put forward his case before the Tribunal in the first instance. Section 7 of the Act which provides for an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal states:

“7(1) Against any such decision of the Tribunal, the State Government, within six months from the date of the decision, and any person aggrieved by such decision within two months from the said date, may appeal to a Special Appellate Tribunal, consisting of two Judges of the High Court nominated from time to time by the Chief Justice in that behalf, provided that the Special Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding three months for the filing of such appeal.

(2) .............

(3)Subject to the decision on such appeal, the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law.

(4)Every decision of the Special Appellate Tribunal and subject to such decision, every decision of the Tribunal shall be binding on all persons claiming an interest in any land in the non-ryotwari area concerned notwithstanding that any such person has not preferred any application or filed any statement or adduced any evidence or appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal or the Special Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.”

Sections 10 and 11 of Act XXX of 1956 vest the Tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question, whether the non-ryotwari area is or is not an estate. Section 7 (4) makes an adjudication by the Special Appellate Tribunal, binding on all persons claiming an interest in any land in the non-ryotwari area concerned, notwithstanding that any such person was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. In a case where there is no appeal to the Special Appellate Tribunal, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document