RAMASWAMI IYER Vs. THANDAVAM PILLAI (DIED) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS pauper appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in O.S. No. 11 of 1954 which was also filed in the pauper form.

(2.) THE plaintiff who is the karnam of Poolanandapuram village seeks in substance the recovery of the suit lands on the ground that they constitute the emoluments of the office of the karnam of Poolanandapuram. In order to take the suit out of the mischief of Sections 13 and 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895), the reliefs prayed for are a declaration that the order of the Board of Revenue passed in 1953 is illegal and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit properties through the revenue Courts or to direct the defendants (alienees) to hand over possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff.

(3.) DURING all the earlier stages of the litigation it has been uniformly found that the land in Poolanandapuram had been enfranchised and that the lands at Chinnamanur had been given on ryotwari patta. In fact the plaint in the suit filed by the plaintiff's father averred that the property had been enfranchised and the decisions of the Munsif's Court, Dindiguland this Court in Ghnniyan v. Kamakshi Ayyar, I.L.R. (1902) Mad. 339, in appeal were that the lands were enfranchised. The plaintiff's contention has been that the decision of this Court has been overruled in Musti Venkata Jagannadha v. Musti Veerabhadrayya, (1921) 41 M.L.J. 1 :, L.R. 48 IndAp 244 :, I.L.R. (1921) Mad. 643. But the difference in view between the two decisions relates exclusively to the nature of the property vested on enfranchisement, whether it enures to the individual holder of the office at the time of enfranchisement or to his family as such. About the legal incidence of enfranchisement, how it permits the holder to dispose of the land without the restrictions imposed by Regulation VI of 1831 and the competency of the Civil Courts to decide on all such matters, there is unison between the two decisions. It is clear from these decisions that the office -holder gets the right of alienation in return for the payment of favourable assessment and if there is any dispute regarding the validity of the disposal of the lands of the office -holder, such disputes can only be adjudicated upon by the civil Courts and not by the revenue Courts.