ATHMANATHASWAMY DEVASTHANAM AVIDYARKOIL Vs. K G VARADACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed suits in S.S.Nos.29 of 1963, 31 of 1963 and 1 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Collector, Pattukottai under Sec.77 of the Madras Estates Land Act for recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant/ plaintiff, they are the owners of the lands situated in three villages, namely, Kalagm, Arasalankarambai and Palayanagaram. The 1st defendant Sri Gopalaswamy Ayyangar was inducted into possession of large uncultivated blocks of lands situated in the said village. The said lands were handed over on lease by the then Pandara Sannadhi to the 1st defendant on the basis of the letter given by the 1st defendant, and the appellant- Devasthanam agreed not to claim any amounts from the 1st defendant in respect of the said three villages. A suit in O.S.No.22 of 1951 was filed for damages for use and occupation for faslis 1357 to 1360 on the ground that the transaction inducting the 1st defendant into the lands was invalid as the lease was granted without any sanction obtained from the Hindu Religious Endowment Board. The said suit was transferred to Sub-Court, Thanjavur and renumbered as O.S.No.70 of 1953. The trial Court found that the lands were ryoti, but the 1st defendant was an encroacher in permissive occupation, who could not acquire permanent occupancy rights in absence of any sanction by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board. Against the judgment and decree, the 1st defendant filed an appeal to the High Court in A.S.No.7 of 1954. The High Court allowed the appeal holding that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant a decree. The said judgment has been upheld in the decision in K.Gopalaswami Ayyangar v. Sri Atmanathaswami Devasthanam K.Gopalaswami Ayyangar v. Sri Atmanathaswami Devasthanam K.Gopalaswami Ayyangar v. Sri Atmanathaswami Devasthanam (1957)1 MLJ. 104. The plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.15 of 1955 in the District Court, Thanjavur for arrears of rent for faslis 1361 to 1363. So the plaintiff went to Supreme Court in C.A.No.70 of 1961 against the judgment in A.S.No.7 of 1954. The Supreme Court also upheld the view of the High Court holding that the lands are to be treated as ryoti and the 1st defendant is a ryoti and the jurisdiction to recover the land and rent would lie only to the Revenue Court. The Apex Court has also held that the "High Court is right in holding that the revenue Court alone is having jurisdiction over the suit and therefore it ordered return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court." Thereafter, on taking return of the plaints in the said two suits, the plaintiffs filed the above suits under Sec.77 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The third suit S.S.No.31 of 1976 was directly filed by the plaintiff before the Revenue Court itself for recovery of Rs.28,776 as rent due for the faslis 1364 to 1372.

(3.) WHILE the second appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel who is also one of the respondents in the appeals (as he has been shown as 2nd respondent in A.S.No.55 of 1965 etc.) raised a preliminary objection stating that these second appeals are not maintainable as the Original proceedings before the Sub-Collector cannot be construed as suits, filed under Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the said objection, we have to consider first the maintainability of the second appeals also in the light of the arguments made by the respective counsel.