MEENAKSHI SUNDARESWARAR Vs. MADRAS STATE COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Madurai Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanams represented by its Executive Officer against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O.S. No. 90 of 1951 dismissing a suit filed against the Government for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,600 in the following circumstances. The lands described in Schedule A to the plaint admittedly belong to the plaintiff devasthanam. By an order dated 24th November, 1942, the said lands were requisitioned for securing the defence of British India in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, and the lands were taken possession of and placed at the disposal of the Executive Engineer, Aviation Division, Madurai. The lands were eventually derequisitioned and returned to the plaintiff on 30th September, 1947 and 9th September, 1949. The plaintiff alleged that the lands were not returned to the devaslhanam in the same condition in which they were when they were taken possession of by the Government because several valuable trees on the lands had been cut by or allowed to be cut through the gross negligence of officers of Government and therefore the plaintiff suffered loss by deprivation of the trees and the income there from. The plaintiff gave an account of the trees alleged to have been cut and destroyed during the period of the defendant's possession. The plaintiff estimated the loss in a sum of Rs. 16,000 having regard to the value of the trees. The plaintiff made a claim on 13th June, 1950, demanding the said amount. But the Collector of Madurai did not comply with the demand. Thereafter the plaintiff gave notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the suit on 19th February, 1951. Only one other fact need be mentioned, and that is that the plaintiff claimed compensation for the loss of some of the trees on the land which he alleged had been cut and destroyed by June, 1944, and he obtained compensation for the same on a reference to the learned District Judge of Madurai who was appointed arbitrator under the Defence of India Act (Exhibit A-2). The State of Madras represented by the District Collector, Madurai, the defendant, pleaded in defence that no trees were cut or destroyed or removed from the suit lands; nor did the defendant allow anybody to do so. They relied on the fact that the first complaint of the devasthanam was made only in June, 1950, more than two and a half years after some of the lands had been handed over and nine months after the remaining lands were handed over. The Government denied all liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The Government filed an additional written statement raising a legal plea, namely, that assuming that any trees were cut during the period of requisitioning the proper relief for the plaintiff was under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939, or that section read with Section 6 of Ordinace (XIX of 1946) or with Section 8 of Act (XVII of 1947) and the suit in a Civil Court was barred by Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act, 1939, and Section 9 of Act (XVII of 1947). On this additional written statement, two additional issues were framed, namely:

(2.) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as contended in the additional written statement ?