PALANI AMMAL Vs. L. SETHURAMA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the landholder to recover possession of some Gramanatham land, which was occupied by the defendant sometime in 1936. The main defence to the suit was that the plaintiff who was one of the co -owners of the inam village in which the land was situated was not entitled to institute the suit in ejectment; secondly, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and that it is communal property and he had, therefore, no title to eject; thirdly, that the plaintiff had no possession within 12 years prior to the date of institution of the suit. On all the questions both the Courts found in favour of the plaintiff negativing the contention of the defendant, and decreed the suit.

(2.) IN this second appeal, again the same contentions were repeated. On the first question apart from the fact that the plaintiff was recognised as the landholder under the Estates Land Act, he is entitled to institute the present suit in ejectment against the defendant who was a trespasser on the finding of the Courts below as laid down by the decision of this Court in Syed Ahmad Sahib v. : AIR1915Mad1214(1) . The contention, therefore, that the plaintiff was not entitled to institute the suit, he being only a co -owner, is untenable.

(3.) THE village in which the suit site is situated is an inam village and the owners of the village (inamdars) would be entitled to all the porombokes except communal porombokes; and this not being a communal poromboke, the plaintiff would be entitled to institute the suit for recovery of possession.