STATE OF MADRAS Vs. SULAIKA BEEVI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1954, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram, declaring that the suit village of Neriyandooval in Mudukulathur taluk, Ramanathapuram Dt. was one to which the provisions of Madras Act XXX of 1947 and the Notifications thereunder would not apply and that the appellant could not interfere with the respondents' possession of the same. The State of Madras, which was the first defendant to the action, is the appellant to the appeal.

(2.) Neriyandooval was one of the 92-3/4 villages in Perungaranai Vattam which was a Dharmasanam grant by the ancient Pandyan King Sundarapandian to certain Brahmins. It is conceded that it is not an inam estate under the provisions of the Madras Act 26 of 1948. The appellant issued a notification under the provisions of Madras Act 30 of 1947, for reducing the rent. Thereupon the 9th respondent filed an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution in C. M. P. No. 13299 of 1950 to this court for quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant.

(3.) Having regard to the nature of the question involved and the evidence that was necessary to be gone into it, was apparently considered necessary that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to file a suit. On behalf of the State, the learned Advocate General waived notice under S. 80 C.P.C. in case the matter was to be agitated by way of suit. This court by its order dated 3-1-1952 held that the more appropriate manner in which the proceedings of the appellant under Act 30 of 1947 could be questioned was to challenge the propriety thereof in a separate suit.