KANAKASABAI PILLAI Vs. MUTHAYYAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders in A.P. Nos. 3 to 6 of 1958 on the file of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam. The landlord is the petitioner in all these petitions. The respective respondents in these petitions filed applications before the Conciliation Officer, Mayuram, alleging that they were pannaiyals under the petitioner who owned more than 6 2/3 acres of lands in Tanjore District, that the petitioner refused to give them the kalavadai due to them and that he improperly dismissed them from service, when they demanded kalavadai as per the terms of what is known as Mayuram agreement. The petitioner resisted the applications on the ground that he owned less than 6 2/3 acres of lands, that the respondents were never his pannaiyals but only causal labourers, and that in any event, he was not liable for the kalavadai claimed by respondents. The' Conciliation Officer accepted the case of the respondents and directed their reinstatement under Section 12(3) of the Tanjore Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952 (Madras Act XIV of 1952). He also directed payment of kalavadai to the respective respondents. That order was under Section 13(1) of the aforesaid Act. Against the orders of the Conciliation Officer the landlord filed four appeals, purporting to be under Section 13(2) of the Act, to the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam. The Revenue Court held that while an appeal would lie in regard to direction of payment of kalavadai, no appeal would lie in regard to the other questions involved in the case namely, (1) whether the respective respondents were pannaiyals of the petitioner and (2) whether the landlord was exempted from the provisions of Madras Act XIV of 1952 on the ground that he owned less than 6 2/3 acres of lands. The landlord has come up in revision against the orders of the Revenue Court, holding that he was not entitled to an appeal against that portion of the order of the Conciliation Officer which held that the respondents were pannaiyals of the petitioner and that the landlord was not entitled to the exemption pleaded.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. T.S. Kuppuswami Iyer, contended that the plea of the petitioner, that the respondents were not his pannaiyals, and the further plea, that the landlord was exempt from the operation of the Act by reason of holding less than 6 2/3 acres of lands, were really disputes that would come within Section 13(1) of the Act, and that there could be a right of appeal against the decision rendered on those questions by the Conciliation Officer under Section 13(1) of the Act. On the other side it was contended that the questions involved in the case would really come within Section 12 of the Act in respect of which there is no right of appeal.