SURISETTI SATYANARAYANAMURTHY Vs. RAJANALA GOPALARAO NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M.P. No. 5638 of 1946 is for stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 34 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, pending the disposal of C.R.P. No. 1278 of 1946 of this Court. Interim stay was granted and thereafter it was contended by the petitioner in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition that the statutory stay provided under Madras Act XVII of 1946 had come into operation and both the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and Civil Revision Petition should be stayed. Consequently the Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Petition were directed to be posted together for orders. The Civil Revision Petition itself is against an order holding that Section 4 of the Act XVII of 1946 has no application to the case.

(2.) THE first defendant is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition while the plaintiff is the respondent. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff alone is the owner of the occupancy rights in the suit lankas, that none of the defendants have any rights of occupancy therein, and that, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession with profits for the suit lankas. Those lands have been since placed under the management of a receiver appointed by the Sub -Court and they are in custodia legis. The defendants, however, claim to be the real occupancy ryots and they contend that the plaintiff is their landholder and that under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act he is not entitled to evict them.

(3.) THE second contention advanced by Mr. Subba Rao is that the Act does not cover a case of this kind where the contest is between persons each of whom claims to be the occupancy ryot in respect of the suit lands. In such a case the claim was to be adjudicated upon as to who is the occupancy ryot and he alone is entitled to the kudivaram right. The other person can only be a tenant under an occupancy ryot and such a person is not entitled to any protection whatever under Act XVII of 1946. This contention is equally sound.