SRIMAT SREE VIDYA SANKARA BHARATH SWAMIVARU, TRUSTEE OF SRI CHANDRAMOULESWARA SWAMIVARU OF PUSHPAGIRI MUTT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT, E. SITARAMAYYA Vs. POPURI RAMAMURTHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been preferred by the landholder, which is the Pushpagiri Mutt, against an order of the Subordinate Judge directing the plaints to be returned for presentation to the Revenue Court as the lands in respect of which the suits have been brought form part of an "estate."

(2.) BOTH the Courts have held that the Lingamguntla Agraharam in which the lands are situated is an "estate." The District Munsiff dismissed the suits on this finding but the Subordinate Judge directed the plaints to be returned, which, of course, is the proper order to make, if the finding is correct.

(3.) HOW Mr. Seshachalapathi, the learned advocate for the appellant, has tried to do it is by invoking the aid of Section 4 of the Amending Act which provides "Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to invalidate any decree or order of a Court which became final before the passing of this Act." He relies on the circumstance that as early as 1921 it was finally held by the High Court in a suit between the mutt and the predecessor in title of the defendant tenant that the Lmgamguntla Agraharam is not an "estate." This is referred to in Ex. P -13 a judgment of Sundaram Chettiar, J., dated 8th August, 1923. So, he contends that as it has been finally held that Lingamguntla is not an "estate" the new legislation cannot be deemed to affect this view taken by the Courts long before 1936.