CHATHU NAIR Vs. CHIRUTHEYI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants. The suit was one for partition. The Trial Court decreed the suit for partition ignoring the contention of the appellants (defendants 2 to 4) that they were entitled to reservation with respect to the plaint schedule property by virtue of Exts. B7 and B29 lease deeds.

(2.) Shri T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, the counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Court below overlooked the fact that there had been Patta Exts. B28 and B53 issued in favour of the appellants by the Land Tribunal. He pointed out that the Court below simply accepted the finding of the Land Tribunal and decreed the suit as prayed for.

(3.) We do not think, in the Scheme of the Land Reforms Act, the Court below could be blamed for passing the judgment and decree appealed against, accepting the decision of the Tribunal on the question of disputed tenancy, inspite of the fact that the appellants (defendants 2 to 4) had produced before that Court Exhibits B28 and B53 purchase certificates obtained from the very same Land Tribunal in respect of the very same properties. There remains, however, a larger question to be decided in this appeal, whether the Land Tribunal's decision was correct and acceptable, which is a question which could be gone into by the appellate court. It was emphasised by Sri. Viswanatha Iyer that the Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that every lease by a Karanavan in favour of an Ananthiravan was invalid, which was not the correct position in accordance with the provisions contained in S.33 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act.