SRI THIAGARAJASWAMY DEVASTHANAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE AND HEREDITARY TRUSTEE SRI LA SRI KAILAI SUBRAMANIA DESIKA GNANASAMBANDA PANDARASANNATHI, ADHINAKARTHAR OF DHARMAPURAM MUTT Vs. SINGARAVELU THEVAR, ADOPTED SON OF KUMARASWAMY THEVAR, NAGAPATTINAM TALUK AND THIRUTHURAIPUNDI MUNSIFI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that falls for determination in this batch of cases is whether the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act LVII of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Trusts Act) applied to proceedings pending under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955, the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, XXIV of 1956, and proceedings pending in the civil Court where defence under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 had been taken when the public Trusts Act LVII of 1961 came into force. Ramamurti, J., in C.R.P. No. 2032 of 1964 and C.R.P. No. 121 of 1965 observing that the provisions of the Public Trusts Act applied to all lands held under a public trust and that the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant should be governed by and worked cut only under that Act even though the relationship might have arisen long anterior applied the Act to proceedings pending under Madras Act XXIV of 1956 and terminated the proceedings. Venkatadri, J., before whom some of the cases now before us came on for hearing, would take the view that pending cases would not be affected by Madras Act LVII of 1961, and finding that his view ran contrary to the opinion expressed by Ramamurti, J., referred the matter to the Division Bench.

(2.) IN A.A.O. Nos. 98 and 99 of 1963, the common appellant is Sri Thiagarajaswami Devasthanain, Tirukkuvalai, represented by its hereditary trustee. The appeals arise out of two suits, O.S. Nos. 167 and 168 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thiruthuraipundi for declaration of the right of the plaintiff to. be in possession of the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant in the respective suits from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. Alternatively there was a claim for decree of possession and consequential reliefs.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff was that the defendants in the suits had been prior lessees of the lands and that the plaintiff had resumed possession on the expiry of their terms. The defendants denied resumption of possession by the plaintiff and contended that they were cultivating tenants within the meaning of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955. Claiming to be entitled to the benefits of the said Act,, they prayed for transfer of the suits to the file of the Revenue Court, Thanjavur,, under Section 6 -A of the Act. The trial Court found that the plaintiff did not resume possession of the lands as claimed and that the defendants had continued in possession of the lands which they entered upon as lessees. It held that the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 167 of 1961 out of which A.A.O. No. 99 of 1963 arises was in arrears of rent and so not entitled to the benefit of Madras Act XXV of 1055. The defendant in O.S. No. 168 of 1961 out of which A.A.O. Nos. 98 of 1963 arises was found to be a cultivating tenant entitled to continue in possession in respect of the B and C Schedule properties in that suit. So far as the A Schedule properties were concerned, as there were arrears it was held that he could claim no protection under the Act. In that view, eviction was ordered against the defendant in O.S. No. 167 of 1961 in respect of the entire suit properties and against the defendant in O.S. No. 168 of 1961 the suit for eviction was decreed in respect of the A Schedule properties and dismissed in respect of B and C Schedule properties. Appeals were taken therefrom by the respective defendants in the suits, and by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 168 of 1961 in respect of A Schedule property. Pending the appeals the Public Trusts Act came into force on 2nd October, 1962 and the defendants raised a defence that Act LVII of 1961 was a bar to the Civil Court entertaining the suits as Madras Act XXV of 1955 and Act XXIV of 1056 had been repealed in their application to a cultivating tenant in respect of any land held by him under a public trust, by Section 57 of the Public. Trusts Act. The learned Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam affirmed the finding of the lower Court that the defendant in the respective suits was a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Madras Act XXV of 1955. He further found that the requisite conditions to attract the provisions of Section 6 -A were fulfilled in respect of the entire suit properties and action should have been taken in the suits under those provisions. But he accepted the additional ground of defence. He overruled the objection that Act LVII of 1961 cannot affect pending proceedings in the civil Court or under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act of 1955. He thought that the proper course was to direct the trial Court to return the plaint in the respective suits to the plaintiff, for re -presentation to the "authorised officer" under Act LVII of 1961. In the result; he set aside the decree of the lower Court and directed the lower Court to return the plaints for presentation to the authorised officer under Act LVII of 1961. A.A.O. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1963 have been preferred from that order.