Provisions of Section 14 of Madras Surveys and Boundaries Act attracted.

This appeal arises out of the Decree and Judgment in Appeal Suit No. 92 of 1955 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Devakottai, confirming those of the District Munsif of Sivaganga in Original Suit No. 36 of 1954. The defendant the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram is the appellant herein. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was filed under section 14 of the Madras Surveys and Boundaries Act. The respondent is a ryot of Sudaikanendal Village as under-tenure dharmasanam village in the Sivaganga taluk. That village was taken over by the State by a notification issued under the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The village was unsurveyed and with a view to facilitate the introduction of ryotwari settlement, a survey of the estate was directed. In that survey the plot A. B. C. C-2 C-3, L. M. N. O. G. A.J. K. in the plan Exhibit A-1 between the tank known as Pudukanmoi and the respondent’s property was clarified as tank-bed was given the same number as the tank namely, S. No. 166. The contiguous land on the north and east of the property which was admittedly in the possession of the respondent was mentioned as S. No. 167 as belonging to him. The case for the respondent was that the plot A.B.C C-2. C-3. L.M.N.O.G.A.J.K., was not part of the tank-bed but part of his patta land. He, therefore, filed a petition to the Survey Officer in regard to the demarcation of the boundary between S. Nos. 167 and 166 claiming that S. No. 166 could not properly be included in the disputed plot which according to him was in his enjoyment from the time of his ancestors. The survey officer rejected his claim and that was affirmed by the Assistant Director of Survey and land records. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit out of which the present Second Appeal arises to set aside the order of the Survey Authorities after declaring that the suit land formed part of his property. The appellant contested the suit. According to it the disputed plot was a portion of the tank, poromboke and that as such its survey was correct and it also stated that the plaintiff who would be entitled to 13 kurukams or 7.28 acres had more than the extent in S. No. 167 which measured 7.98 acres. The learned District Munsif held that the suit property was part and parcel of the respondent’s property having been in his enjoyment from the time of his ancestors for more than the statutory period and that the survey of the land as part of the tank poramboke was wrong. In that view the suit was decreed as prayed for: On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge came to the same conclusion. The State has filed the present Second Appeal against the decision of the lower appellate Court. The substantial question for decision in the present appeal is whether an erstwhile ryot or landholder who has not yet obtained patta has got a right of suit under section 14 of the Madras Surveys and Boundaries Act, 1923. Sudaikanendal Village in which the suit property is situate was an unsurveyed estate in respect of which a notification under section 3 of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 which I shall refer to hereafter as the Abolition Act, was issued. The effect of that notification is to vest the entire estate in the Government freed from all encumbrances. The object of the Act was to abolish the zamindari and inam estates and to introduce ryotwari settlement. That purpose was achieved by taking over the entire estate freed from all encumbrances and granting ryotwari patta to the ryot, landholder of an estate or under-tenure, or the holder of a service tenure as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of sections 14 to 17 of the Act. Thereafter the pattadar held the land under his patta as a proprietor directly paying to the Government such assessment as may lawfully be imposed on the land. Therefore after the estate vested in the Government, the only right of the landholder, under-tenure holder or the ryot was to obtain patta. But the statute, h