GANESAN Vs. K. MADURAI ACHARI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the two suit (O.S. Nos. 608 and 663 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chingleput) has preferred these two second appeals. The question in both the cases is whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership)(Act XL of 1971), hereinafter referred to as the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act, and the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act (XXXVIII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as the Kudiyiruppu Protection Act, and whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits.

(2.) ONE Rajaram Naidu and others owned certain lands extending 2.89 acres of which the suit site (3 cents) is part. The defendant became a tenant of the suit site under the above owners as evidenced by Exhibit A -7 dated 20th March, 1973, which says that he had become tenant even two years prior to the date of the document. It is now common ground that he so became tenant in or about March, 1971. He put up a superstructure and has been enjoying the same. One Balasubramaniam purchased the land (including the suit, site) under Exhibit A -3 dated 4th December, 1973. He sold half of the suit site (1 1/2 cents) to the plaintiff in one of the suits and other half (1 1/2 cents) to the plaintiff in the other suit, under the sale deeds, Exhibits A -1 and A -2, both dated 5th December, 1973. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant attorned the tenancy to them but failed to pay the rent and began asserting hostile title. They gave notice terminating the tenancy. The defendant totally denied the tenancy in his reply notice and stated that he had never paid rent to any one. He contended that the site is part of a poramboke and that neither the plaintiffs nor the vendor had any title to the same.

(3.) ALL these contentions were negatived by the trial Court. It also negatived the contentions put forward by the defendant at the trial that by virtue of the provisions contained in the Kudiyiruppu Protection Act and the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits The defendant filed two appeals against the common judgment and decrees in the suit, but they failed. Hence these two second appeals by him.