A suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of lands which were admittedly at one time ryoti lands is not maintainable in the civil court.

RAJAMANNAR, C. J. :- This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami Gounder, J., dismissing the appellants suit on the Original Side of this Court, C. S. No. 148 of 1950, against the Corporation of Madras, the respondent before us. The suit was for the recovery of Rs. 10,845-8-0 or such other sum as may be found due as arrears of "melwaram" in respect of lands described in schedules A, B and C to the plaint.

2. The plaintiff is the present Zamindarani of the Zamin village of Mambalam. The material allegations in the plaint were that she and her predecessors were entitled to collect and were collecting melwaram from the various kudivaramdars occupying the lands comprised in the Zamindari, that the melwaram varied according to the nature of the land, that is, according to the use to which the land had been put, that in the case of agricultural lands the melwaram collected from the kudiwaramdars was four annas per ground per fasli and in the case of building sites one rupee per ground per fasli (paragraph 3).

The plaintiff stated that the lands described in the schedules were in the occupation of kudiwaramdars who were paying the melwaram to the Zamindar for the time being and were obtaining pattas for the said lands. From time to time portions of these lands were being included in the Madras City area and by the date of the suit all the suit lands had been so included and had passed into the possession of the defendant, the Corporation of Madras, who obtained these lands from the various Kudiwaramdars either by direct purchase from them or by obtaining assignment from them in exercise of their statutory rights.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant Corporation as the successor in interest of the various Kudiwaramdars from whom they acquired these lands were bound to pay the melwaram to the plaintiff as the Zamindarini. In paragraph 8 of the plaint she stated that all the lands described in the verious schedules to the plaint had ceased to be agricultural lands and had become valuable house sites or public roads and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to melwaram at one rupee per ground per fasli which had been considered fair and reasonable by courts.

The amount of melwaram claimed covered a period between fasli 1348 to 1358 in respect of Schedule A lands and from faslis 1352 to 1358 in respect of B and C schedule lands. Several pleas were raised by the Corporation in their written statement and one of them was "Is the suit as framed maintainable in view of the provisions of the Zaminuari (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1948, and the Madras City Municipal Act?" It appears, however, that at the trial another preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the defendant that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act.

It was this objection which received considerable attention at the hands of the learned trial Judge, obviously because the defendant relied most on that. The learned Judge, Ramaswami Goundar, J., did not go into the merits but decided on the preliminary objection and held that the suit was not sustainable both under the Madras Estates Land Act as well as under Madras Act XXVI of 1948, the Abolition Act.

He came to this conclusion because in his view the suit was for the recovery of melwaram or rent due from ryoti land and the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for rent due from ryoti land. The logical result of acceptance of the plea based on the Madras Estates Land Act would have been to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. But this was not done by the learned Judge obviously because he held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. That was why the suit was dismissed.

2A. We must confess that the judgment of the learned Judge does not throw much light on the reasons which impelled the learned judge to accept the plea under Madras Act XXVI of 1