V. KUPPUSWAMI AND ORS. Vs. SRI SUBRAMANIASWAMI DEVASTAHANAM BY ITS TRUSTEES, KANAKASABHAI PILLAI AND MUTHURAMALINGA CHETTIAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O .S. No. 41 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram,. is a suit by the trustees of the Subramaniaswami Devasthanam at Thiruvidakkazhi and a person named Muhammad Ali claiming to be a lessee from the devasthanam, for the issue of an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit properties.

(2.) THIRTY three persons were impleaded as defendants in the suit. On behalf of all of them the first defendant filed a written statement in which, among other things, the plea was taken that, only the revenue Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. On list November, 1956 the defendants filed I .A. No. 522 of 1956 praying that O.S. No. 41 of 1956, be transferred to the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayuram. The transfer was asked for on the basis of Section 6 -A which was introduced into Madras Act XXV of 1955 by Madras Act XIV of 1956. To that section I shall return presently. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application. The defendants have therefore come to this Court.

(3.) THE question I have to determine here is what do the words "cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of this Act" mean ? It will be noticed that the word 'benefits' is in the plural and therefore if some one were to say that before a cultivating tenant can call in aid Section 6 -A he must be entitled to all the benefits under the Act or to more benefits than one under the Act, he would not be running counter to the rules of grammar. But since that contention has not been raised before me I need not go into it.