TULABANDU BASAVAYYA ALIAS CHINNA BASAVAYYA Vs. SRI SATYABHIGNA THEERTHASWAMULU VARU (DECEASED) TRUSTEE AND WORSHIPPER OF SRI RAMACHANDRASWAMI AND HEAD OF THE UTTARADI MUTT BY HIS POWER-OF-ATTORNEY AGENT MARKAPURAM SRINIVASACHARYULU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three civil revision petitions arise out of three suits instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali, by the head of the Uttaradi Mutt as trustee of a religious endowment, for the recovery of lands in the possession of the defendants in the respective suits. The averments in the pleadings, the issues raised and the evidence adduced ate common to the three suits which were tried together and decided by a common judgment, both original and appellate. The lands in suit are situate in Devarapalle agraharam. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants in each of the three suits were his lessees whose term had expired but who, nevertheless, continued in possession of the lands under an untenable claim of permanent occupancy rights. The defendant contended that the lands in the suit were "ryoti" lands situated in an "estate" and that they had therefore acquired occupancy rights therein under Section 6(1), Madras Estates Land Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. They also pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The learned District Munsif upheld the plea of the defendants and returned the plaints in the three suits for presentation to the revenue Court. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decision and directed the lower Court to proceed with the trial of the three suits holding that the lands in question were not ryoti lands and that the suits for the ejectment of the tenants of those lands were cognizable by the civil Court. The defendants in the three suits have preferred these civil revision petitions against the decision of the appellate Court.

(2.) THE point involved in these civil revision petitions and on which the rights of the parties depend, is whether the lands in suit are "ryoti" lands as defined in Section 3(2)(d) of the Act, and that question again depends upon whether the Devacappale agraharam granted in inam to the predecessor -in -title of the plaintiff is an "estate" as defined in the Act. According to the plaintiff this point is concluded in his favour by the decision of a Bench of this Court in Ademma v. : AIR1943Mad187 which dealt with other lands of the same character situated in the same village. The plaintiff was a party to that decision but not the defendants, and therefore there is no question of res judicata. According to the defendants, Madras Act II [2] of 1945 was enacted in order to supersede the decision in Ademma v. : AIR1943Mad187 and the matter is now res integra to be decided on the evidence in this case.