VELLACHAMY AMBALAM Vs. PARAMASAMY AMBALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings are intimately related to each other, in the sense that the Second Appeal is instituted by a party to a civil suit for an injunction, while the Revision proceedings are instituted by the landholder who was a party to proceedings for restoration of possession by an alleged cultivating tenant, in the Revenue Court, in respect of the same piece of property. As is well -known., Madras Act XXV of 1955 specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters within the scope of the Act, except to a specified extent, under Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 -A makes provision for the transfer of certain suits to the Revenue Court by the civil Court itself, where the civil Court finds that the defendant is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act. The respective ambits of jurisdiction of the civil and Revenue Courts in this matter have been the subject of decisions of this Court, and may well lead, in certain cases, to some confusion and difficulty. The present case is an instance in which there is a certain difficulty arising from the facts, because the parties really at controversy are not merely the landholder and the cultivating tenant inducted into possession by the landholder, but also a prior cultivating tenant who claims that the subsequent stranger was introduced into possession by a lease which was not valid, and which was not in accordance with law. For these reasons I am dealing with the Second Appeal and the Revision proceedings together by means of this common judgment. I shall first set forth the facts, with reference to the Second Appeal, and then proceed to consider the proper order that should be made both in the Second Appeal and in the Revision proceedings.

(2.) VERY briefly stated, the facts are that the concerned properties are nanja lands in Tamaraipatti village, which originally belonged to one Rajaram. The parties to the suit for injunction were the plaintiff, who is the subsequent lessee under two lease deeds, dated 2nd June, 1958, and the alleged original cultivating tenant under the prior landholder Rajaram. It is the common case between the parties that Rajaram sold the lands to Ponnuswami and his wife Sulochana, under two sale deeds Exhibits A -3 and A -4 on 23rd April, 1958. The suit for injunction was resisted by the alleged prior tenant (Paramaswami Ambalam) on the ground that he was a tenant under a valid lease from Rajaram since 1952, that he was a tenant holding over entitled to protection under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, and that, under the circumstances, neither Ponnuswami nor his wife (subsequent alienees) could validly induct into possession any party like the plaintiff in suit. Nor could any injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff, upon that state of rights. What happened in the first Court was that the learned District Munsif of Madurai Taluk went in great detail into the question whether there was a surrender of possession by the defendant (Paramaswami Ambalam) to the original owner, as alleged by the plaintiff. The learned District Munsif found that this surrender was established, hence that the plaintiff was validly inducted into possession by the subsequent landlords and that the suit for injunction was consequently liable to be decreed. The learned District Judge, in appeal, took precisely an opposite view of the issue of surrender of possession, after an elaborate discussion of the merits. The learned District Judge, in substance, dismissed the suit for injunction.

(3.) AS far as the Revenue Court is concerned, what happened was that the learned Revenue Divisional Officer referred, with some particulars, to the pending civil suit for injunction, but finally came to the conclusion that Paramaswami Ambalam (alleged prior tenant) was entitled to restoration of possession in respect of these lands. A very important and significant circumstance is that the subsequent tenant, namely, plaintiff, appellant in the Second Appeal, was not a party at all to the proceedings in the Revenue Court. Admittedly, no notice of those proceedings was ever issued to him. The Revision proceedings are instituted by the two subsequent landholders (Ponnuswami and his wife Sulochana) canvassing the propriety of the order of the Revenue Court, which granted the relief of restoration of possession.