STATE OF MADRAS Vs. BALAMANAVALA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Madras represented by the District Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai has preferred these appeals App. Nos. 427 of 1964 and 446 of 1964, against the decrees and judgment in O. S. Nos. 26 of 1962 and O. S. No. 13 of 1962 respectively of the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sivaganga, decreeing the suits for declaration and injunction as prayed for with costs. The properties comprised in these suits are situate in Chittikurichi Village and they are claimed by the plaintiff in the suits as ryoti lands, which were punja from prior to the enactment of Madras Act I of 1908. The Additional Assistant Settlement officer, Arupppukottai, ordered the issue of ryotwari pattas to the plaintiff in each of the suits under the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. But the Settlement Officer in suo motu proceedings set aside the orders on the ground that the suit lands are part of tank bed. After unsuccessfully invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, The respondent-Plaintiff in each of these appeals filed the above suits. The learned subordinate Judge found that the suit lands are ryoti lands and not tank bed and rejected the contentions of the appellant that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits, that by virtue of Section 64-C of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the decision of the Settlement Officer that the suit lands are tank bed lands is final and cannot be questioned in any Court of law and that the decision of this Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondent-Plaintiff in each of these appeals will operate as res judicata and in the result decreed the suits as prayed for with costs.

(2.) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader mainly argued the appeals on two grounds, namely, that the finding of the Settlement Officer that the suit lands are tank bed lands is final and can not be questioned in a Civil Court and that the decision of this court in the writ petitions filed by the plaintiffs will operate as res judicata. On the evidence in this case, there can be no doubt that the learned subordinate, Judge has correctly found that the suit lands are ryoti lands.

(3.) WE shall first consider the character of the suit lands in O. S 26 of 1962 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court. Sivaganga Ex. A-1 is a registration copy of a lease deed dated 27-10-1901 executed by Thirumania Pillai in favour of alagirisami Reddiar. It is clear from the recitals in the document that Alagirisami reddiar purchased the property in a Court auction held on 10-10-1986 in execution of the decree in O. S 1083 of 1896 on the file of the District Munsif's court. Manamadurai. It has been produced by the plaintiff as his document of title, and his son-in-law P. W. 1 Sundararaja Reddiar referred to it in his evidence, though he does not personally know about the transaction. The property covered by Ex-A-1 is described as lying to the north of peria Kamoi Sluice and the upper bund of Kanmoi and east of the kanmoi bund. The total extent of the land is given as 16 1/2 kulis in inam paimash No. 73 Ex A-2 is a registration copy of a sale deed dated 28-6-1909 executed by one Annamalai Chettiar in favour of Thiruvengada reddiar, the father of P. W. 1 Sundaraja Reddiar and Subba Reddiar, the father of the plaintiff P. W. 2 Balamanaval Reddiar. It is clear from the recitals in the document that the property was purchased by Somasundara Chettiar vagaira in a sale held in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 1900 of 1933 on the file of the subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai. The sale deed in favour of Annamalai Chettiar has not been produced in this case. Though it is clear from the description of the property that it relates to Paimash No. 73, it is also described as lying south of the punja lands of Alagiriswami Reddiar, evidently referred to in Ex. A-1. The property is described as lying to the north and east of the kanmoi bund. Ex. A-3 is a registration copy of a sale deed executed by Subba Reddiar in favour of his balamanavala Reddiar the plaintiff in this suit, in respect of his share. Ex. A-4 is a registration copy of a sale deed executed by Thiruvengada Reddiar, the father of p. W. 1. in favour of Ethiraj Chettiar and Ethiraj Chettiar has in his turn sold the property to the plaintiff under Ex. A-5 dated 29-4-1935. Thus the plaintiff claims title to the property claimed by him by virtue of the above title deeds relied on by him. He has produced the pattas Exs. A-6 to A-20 issued by the Rameswaram devastanam as the melwaramdar to him and his predecessors-in-title and they range from the year 1911 onwards. The plaintiff has also produced the receipts showing payment of kist by him and his predecessors-in-title. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Discussion of evidence omitted ). The learned Subordinate Judge has rightly rejected the evidence of the defence witnesses and found on ample materials that the plaintiff and her predecessors-ininterest were in possession of the suit land as ryoti land.