MUHAMMAD BADSHA SAHEB AND ORS. Vs. DURAISAMI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal (C.M.S.A. No. 80 of 1958) is from the order, dated 27th August, 1958, passed, by the District Judge of South Arcot in A.S. No. 346 of 1956 on his file. C.R.P. No. 2037 of 1958 is preferred from the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Tiruppattur, on 9th June, 1958, in T.P. No. 58 of 1957.

(2.) S .T. Muhammad Hussain leased the land to which she appeal and the petition relate, on 7th June, 1951, to Duraisami Goundan. The lease expired with 12th May, 1952. Muhammad Hussain instituted O.S. No. 379 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirupattur for evicting Duraisami Goundan. A decree ex parte was passed in that suit on 16th September, 1954. Duraisami Goundan a plied on 17th September, 1954, that the decree be set aside. During the pendency of that application, he was dispossessed, in execution of the decree, on 30th October, 1954. The decree was set aside on 5th April, 1955. Madras Act XXV of 1955 (Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act) came into force on 24th September, 1955. On 15th February, 1956, Duraisami Goundan filed an application for restitution, that is to say, to be put back in possession of the property. That application was pending until 3rd November, 1956. On 24th August, 1956, by Amending Act XIV of 1956, Section 6 -A was introduced in Madras Act XXV of 1955. Section 6 -A requires that any suit pending before a Court for possession of land against a person who is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act should be transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situate. When Section 6 -A became part of Madras Act XXV of 1955, the suit O.S. No. 379 of 1952 was pending on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirupattur. The plaintiff in that suit namely, Muhammad Hussain was in possession by reason o having taken possession in pursuance of the decree which had been passed ex parte. The application for restitution, namely, the application by the defendant to be restored to possession, was pending. On 3rd November, 1956, the learned District Munsif passed an order allowing the application for restitution and directing the transfer of the suit to the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer.

(3.) THE order for restitution which had been made in favour of the defendant by the District Munsif was appealed from by Muhamad Hussain. In that appeal, his legal representatives were added. They prosecuted the appeal. Pending appeal there was stay of execution of the order for restitution. Consequently, Muhammad Husain's representatives continued in possession. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge. From the order of dismissal, C.M.S.A. No. 80 of 195S has been preferred.