R SIVAJI RAO SAHEB SEERVAI Vs. AKILANDATHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Government of Madras assigned two Items of property, 2 acres 12 cents comprised in R. S. No. 33/2, and 2 acres 92 cents in R. S. No. 338/2 in the village of Indalur, Tanjore taluk belonging to them in favour of Sivaji Rao Sahib soorvai who claimed to be of the class of persons described as "political sufferers" to whom grants of lands were being made in accordance with the Government orders issued from time to time. The assignment in favour of Sivaji Rao was dated 27-6-1950. A revenue patta was also issued in his favour on 12-1-1951. He could not however get possession of the assigned properties as he was met with the opposition of the persons in possession claiming to he lessees from the State government under the scheme sponsored by the Government called "the Grow more Food" campaign. Sivaji Rao was therefore compelled to institute a suit, O. S. No. 120 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru for recovery of possession of the properties covered by the patta in his favour from four persons who were impleaded as defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. The first defendant disclaimed all interest in the property and submitted that he was an unnecessary party to the suit.

(2.) THE second defendant claimed to be in possession of plaint item 1 as a lessee from the State Government under the Grow More Food campaign and submitted that lie belonged to a class of persons known as "landless poor" that he had reclaimed the lands by spending a sum of Rs. 1000/- that the Government was bound to have granted an assignment only to him and that the assignment in favour of the plaintiff was not valid. The third defendant submitted that he had no interest in any portion of the suit. properties and that he was an unnecessary part to the suit. Defendant 4 claimed to 13e in possession of plaint item 2 and she also claimed that the land was granted to her by the Government under the Grow More food campaign in 1943. She submitted that the land was originally a waste land and that she re-claimed it at an enormous cost as she was made to understand by the Government that the reclaimed lands would be assigned only to her with permanent rights therein. She pleaded that she had spent a sum of Rs. 1000/- for purposes of reclamation. She contested the validity of the grant in favour of the plaintiff and denied his right to evict her.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif of Triuvaiyaru who tried the suit round that the grant in favour of the plaintiff was valid, that the defendants had no right to continue in possession of the suit properties and granted a decree in favour of the-plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit Properties with future mesne profits from date of the plaint till delivery of possession to he ascertained in separate proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff's claim for recovery of past mesne, profits was negatived. Both the second and the fourth defendants preferred appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the District Court of West Tanjore at Tanjore which were transferred to the Sub court of Kumbakonam, for disposal. The appeal of the defendant 4 before the Sub court was A. S. No. 105 of 1957 and that of the second defendant was A. S. No. 108 of 1957. The plaintiff preferred memorandum of cross objections against the decree of the Court below negativing past mesne profits. The learned Subordinate judge of Kumbakonam held that the assignment in favour of the plaintiff was not valid as it was not in accordance with the rules governing dharkhast grants by the state Government, that the contesting defendants 2 ant 4 were lawfully in possession as lessees from the State Government and that therefore their possession cannot he disturbed. Accordingly the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the gust was directed to be dismissed with costs throughout. The cross objections preferred by the plaintiff also failed necessarily. S. A. No. 37 of 1959 has been preferred by the aggrieved plaintiff in O. S. No. 120 of 1956.