ADAKALATHAMMAL Vs. CHINNAYYAN PANIPUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in these appeals is whether the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try a suit for possession and other incidental reliefs based on title is ousted by section 56 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. These appeals have been posted before a Division Bench because ramaswami Gounder J. , considered that there was a conflict between the decision in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Muhammad Aliar Rowther W. P. No. 670 of 1955, C. R. P. 340 of 1956 and State of Madras v. Swaminathan, 1955-2 Mad LJ 178. Section 56 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, which will be referred to in the course of this judgment as the Act, runs thus: "where after an estate is notified, a dispute arises as to (a) whether any rent due from a ryot for any fasli year is in arrear or (b) what amount of rent is in arrear or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is, the dispute shall be decided by the Settlement Officer. " To understand the implication of this section, it is necessary to refer to other sections of the Act. Section 3 (b) provides that with effect on and from the notified date and save otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the entire estate notified shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free from all encumbrances. Under Clause (c) of the same section all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other land-holder, shall as against the Government cease and determine and under Clause (d) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the estate and all accounts etc. , relating to the estate. There is a proviso to Clause (d) which is important. It runs thus: "provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta -- (i) if such person is a ryots pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta; (ii) if such person is a land-holder, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to it, as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta;" Clause (e) makes it clear that no person shall be entitled to any rights and privileges except those which are recognised or conferred on him by or under the Act. Under section 11 every ryot in an estate is entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all ryoti lands which immediately before the notified date were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not lands of a particular description. Section 12 confers rights oh the land-holder to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of private lands and other lands falling under Clause (b) (i), (ii)and (in) which it is not necessary to quote. Section 13 deals with lands in an inam estate in which the land-holder is entitled to a ryotwari patta. The Settlement Officer is the authority to examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the land-holder claims a ryotwari patta under Sections. 12, 13 or 14. Section 58 occurs among the miscellaneous provisions of the Act. Though in terms Section 56 confers on the Settlement Officer the power to decide a dispute as to who the lawful ryot of any holding is, there is no corresponding provision expressly taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court. Section 65 no doubt bars the jurisdiction of courts in certain cases; but that is more in the nature, of an immunity section.

(2.) HAVING regard to the material provisions of the Act and having regard to the express languages of such provisions and without referring to any decided authority we are of opinion that Clause (c) in Section 56, Sub-section (1) of the act refers Only to a dispute as to rights under the Act, that is, the right to obtain a ryotwari patta. The decision of the Settlement Officer would be necessary in case of a dispute to work out the right conferred under Section 11 on every ryot in an estate to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti lands which were included or ought to have been included in his holding. The proviso to Section 3 (d) which has been quoted earlier in this judgment prevents Government from dispossessing any person of any lands in an estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta, if such a person is a ryot pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to such a patta. It follows, therefore, that if a person has been in possession of ryoti land and another person has trespassed on his holding and no ryotwari patta has actually been granted to either of the persons, there is nothing prima facie in any of the provisions of the Act which prevents a civil court from entertaining a suit for possession by a person who had been in possession and who had been dispossessed. Such a dispute would not necessarily mean that the successful party would be eventually entitled to a patta. To give one instance, if the person in possession was a sub-tenant from a ryot for a fixed period and during that period he had been dispossessed by another, the sub-tenant could maintain a suit for possession and even obtain possession; but eventually the patta may be granted only to the ryot in respect of the holding and not to the subtenant, who might have succeeded in his suit for possession against the trespasser. Clause (c) in Section 56 (1) should be read along with other provisions of the Act and the rights and privileges which can be recognised and conferred y or under the Act. So understood there is no conflict between the jurisdiction of a Settlement officer and the jurisdiction of a civil court.

(3.) THE suits out of which the above appeals arise were all suits simpliciter for recovery of possession on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to the concerned land and that the defendant or defendants are trespassers. Section 56 (1) cannot by implication take away the jurisdiction of the civil court to try such suits.