KARUPPUSAMY Vs. MUNIAPPA KUDUMBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) THE suit is for declaration and injunction. THE case of the plaintiff is that the land originally belonged to one Kariveeran chettiyar. He had two daughters by name Veerammal and Kalyani and a son by name veerappa Chettiar. In an oral partition the suit property was allotted to the daughters. On 16. 6. 1944 they sold the suit property to their brother Veerappa chettiar. THE Patta Number of the property is No. 10 and Survey Number is 61, measuring 65 and 1/2 cents. Again on 29. 10. 46 Veerappa Chettiar sold the property to his sisters Veerammal and Kalyani. On 3. 55. 1948 they in turn sold the property to plaintiff. On 15. 7. 48 the plaintiff has redeemed the property.

(3.) IN support of the first contention the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon (i) Vanathan Muthuraja, S. v. Ramalingam alias krishnamurthy Gurukkal, 1997 (1) CTC 692 and (ii) R. Manicka Naicker v. M. Elumalai and others, AIR 1995 SC 1613 The first case does not helpful to the appellant. This is evident from the observation of the Apex Court at the end of the said judgment in the following terms: "the Act provides for the jurisdiction on the tribunals in matters relating thereto and hierarchy of appeals/ revisions are provided thereunder. Thereby, by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of the suits of civil nature covered under the land reform laws stand excluded giving not only the finality to the decisions of the Tribunal but also ensuring disposal of the matters by the Tribunal and making the Ryotwari patta granted to the tiller of the soil conclusive. " We are not concerned here with the dispute as regards to the patta granted to the appellant under the Act. Here we are concerned with the title of the individuals to the property in dispute. Such a matter which are not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunals created under the tamil Nadu Minor INams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 30 of 1963 have to be decided by the Civil Court only. This is the law laid down by the apex Court in R. Manicka Naicker v. M. Elumalai and others, A I R 1995 SC 1613. The Apex Court has considered the scope and the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and the Civil Court in the judgment. IN paragraph 16 they have held as follows: "therefore, there is no question of ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matters falling within its jurisdiction and which are outside the purview of the said Act. Section 46 also provides for finality only in respect of the decisions of the Tribunal in respect of matters which are required to be determined by it for the purposes of the said Act. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court, therefore, to determine title to the lands in question or to determine whether the lessor has a right to evict the lessee from the lands in question is not ousted in any manner by the said Act. " Therefore the first contention of the counsel for the appellant does not hold good.