M MUNUSWAMY Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions are placed before us because Kailasam, J. , was unable to agree with the view in Natesa Pillai v. Mahalinga Padayachi, 1961 (2)Mad LJ 246 as to the scope of sub-section (5) of Section 4-A of the Madras cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The petitioner in each of the petitions is a tenant and seeks to revise the order of the concerned Authorised Officer for resumption of land from the relative cultivating tenant. The question turns on whether a purchaser from a landlord subsequent to the date mentioned in subsection (4) of Section 4-A will not be hit by the inhibition imposed by sub-section (5 ). This precise matter was considered by one of us in Kothanda Pillai v. Devaraja reddy, It was there held that sub-section (5) fixed not merely a ceiling in respect of the extent with reference to which right to resume for personal cultivation was given, but also drew a line on time so that any change subsequent thereto in the circumstances of the landlord was made ineffective to disturb the protection afforded to the cultivating tenant. In expressing that view, support was derived from two earlier cases, Natesa Pillai v. Mahalinga Padayachi, (1961) 2 Mad LJ 246 and Rajadurai v. Kunjurasu Vanniar, (1961) 2 Mad LJ 426.

(2.) KALIASAM, J. , in stating that he found himself unable to agree with the view in (1961) 2 Mad LJ 246 observed: