DORAISWAMI GOUNDAN Vs. SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this revision petition is whether the Government is a necessary party to the suit.

(2.) The suit O. S. No. 193 of 1948 was instituted for a declaration that the resumption proceedings and the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, and the District Collector, Coimbatore, with reference to the suit property were null and void and that they would not affect the plaintiff's right, title and enjoyment of the suit, lands, or alternatively for declaring that the inam in the suit laud was only of the melwaram and that it could alone be resumed and regranted to the defendant. The suit was contested and one of the issues which was tried as a preliminary issue is "whether the Government is a necessary party to the suit." The lower Court held that Government was a necessary party and hence this revision petition by the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that the defendant applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, under Section 44-B, Hindu Religious Endowments Act, for resumption of the suit land on the ground that it was a service inam granted to his forefathers and the reason for the resumption was that the plaintiff was his lessee for many years under a long lease exceeding five years and therefore it was void in law. The Revenue Divisional Officer did not accept the evidence on behalf of the defendant and dismissed his application for resumption as there had been no proof of lease for a period exceeding five years, the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the revenue authorities for resumption under Section 44-B being either an alienation or a lease for over 5 years. On appeal the District Collector of Coimbatore remanded the case for fresh disposal and after remand, a new Revenue Divisional Officer, who heard the case, held in favour of the defendant. As against that order the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed on 5th February 1948.