PERIANNAN Vs. AIRABADEESWARAR SOUNDARANAYAGI AMMAN KOVIL OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals and the civil revision petitions arise out of a batch of suits relating to the village of Manamelpatti, a Dharmasanam village, in the Ramnad District. The suits out of which these second appeals arise were instituted by the trustees of Airabhadeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Temple for ejectment of the defendants from the lands in their respective possession and for recovery of rent for faslis 1349 and 1350 and for future profits. The village comprises 80 pangus out of which the plaint temple in this batch owns 23 1/2 pangus purchased from the original owners and one pangu taken on othi from the owner. The plaintiffs in the batch of suits out of which the civil revision petitions arise are the managers of the Devasthanam of Nagara Vairavanpatti Valaroleeswaraswami Nagara Vairavaswami Devasthanam. This temple owns 54 and 5/8th pangus or shares in the village and suits were instituted for recovery of the balance of amounts due as 'iru bogam' for faslis 1349 and 1350. In both the batches of suits the plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners of melwaram and kudiwaram interest in the lands which were being enjoyed as "pannai" lands or "private lands" that they were leasing the lands from time to time changing tenants and were also collecting "swami bhogam" in recognition of their full proprietary rights in the lands. They claimed that the tenants had no occupancy rights in the lands; and in the second appeals batch a relief for ejectment of the tenants is also claimed. The defence of the defendants-tenants in both the batches is common. They claimed that the temples owned only the melwaram interest and that they, the tenants, are the owners of the kudiwaram which they have been enjoying hereditarily paying half waram in respect of the nanjas and a fixed money rent for the punja or dry lands according to the "tharam" (classification) of the lands. They denied that they ever paid "swami bhogam" to the temple. In all the suits there is the common plea that the village is an "estate", under Section 3(2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, as amended by the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1936 (Act XVIII of 1036), that they had therefore acquired occupancy rights under the Act; that the lands were ryoti and that, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try these suits.

(2.) Appropriate issues covering the contentions of the parties were raised in the two sets of suits and they were disposed of by the same District Munsif in the Court of first instance by similar judgments though not by a common judgment and the same procedure was adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge in appeals. The plaintiffs raised an alternative contention that on the footing that the village is an "estate", the suits lands are private lands or pannai lands of the temples and therefore the defendants acquired no occupancy rights in the lands under the statute and that the civil Court alone had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits.

(3.) The main questions that had to be considered by the Courts below were whether the village was or was not an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, &, if so, whether the lands were private lands as claimed by the plaintiffs or ryoti lands as claimed by the tenants. The further question that even apart from the Estates Land Act whether the defendants had acquired occupancy rights by prescription was also raised and considered. The Jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suits depended upon the decision of the question whether the village was or was not an estate. There were also some other questions of subordinate importance in these suits which were considered and disposed of by the trial Court but they are no longer in issue in these proceedings now before us. They may, therefore, be left out of consideration.