NALLANNA GOUNDER Vs. MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal raises the interesting question whether a lease of agricultural land from the Government could, against the claim for possession by the Government on the expiry of the lease, rely upon the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (Act XXV of 1955). The State claims immunity and exemption from the provisions of the statute hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Courts below have accepted the claim of the State.

(2.) THE suit property, river Padugai Poramboke land of an extent of 3 acres and 25 cents, in Senappiratti Village, Katut Taluk, was leased out by the Tahsildar acting for the State Government by Public auction to the plaintiff for a period of three Faslis commencing from Fasli 1353. On the expiry of the period of lease, again, at a public auction the plaintiff became the lessee of the land for Faslis 1365 to 1368. Taking the lease, the plaintiff duly executed a Muchlika on 3rd January, 1958 in favour of the Tahsildai, agreeing to pay the rent for the three Faslis and undertaking to surrender possession of the suit land after the expiry of the lease. When on the expiry of the 2nd lease period, the Tahsildar announced public auction of the leasehold right, the plaintiff objected to the auction being held, submitting that he was a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act. Over -ruling this objection, the auction was proceeded with, and the 1st defendant in the suit out of which the second Appeal arises, became the successful bidder at the auction, of the leasehold right. However, he could not get possession, in view of the contention put for ward by the plaintiff. Apprehending forceful eviction, the plaintiff filed the suit, now under consideration, for a declaration that he is entitled to the benefits conferred on cultivating tenants under the Act and for an injunction against the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit land. The Court below, relying on certain early decisions of this Court prior to independence, and applying Section 3 of the Government Grants Act (Act XV of 1895), would uphold paramountcy of the provision in the lease deed of the plaintiff that he should surrender possession of the land at the expiry of the lease period, over the provisions of the Act, granting a cultivating tenant immunity from dispossession on certain conditions.

(3.) TWO questions were argued before me : (1) Claim of immunity of the Government from the operation of a Statute unless the statute in express terms 01 by necessary implication bound the Government and (2) the paramountcy of the terms in a Government grant notwithstanding anything contained in any statute or enactment of Legislature, by virtue of Section 3 of the Government Grants Act.