P. KRISHNAMURTHY AND ORS. Vs. THAMBARAM PANCHAYAT BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NARAYANASWAMY, NOW THE TAMBARAM MUNICIPALITY, BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two batches of cases, one batch of second appeals and. another batch of civil revision petitions, can be disposed of by a common judgment as the points that arise for consideration are the same. The following facts are necessary to understand the scope of the controversy. Survey Nos. 323 and 324 together measuring an extent of 5 -03 acres situated in Tambaram village, Saidapet taluk, are poramboke lands. As per G.O. No. 2114, Public Health, dated 11th June, 1938, Tambaram Town Planning scheme was sanctioned and the aforesaid two survey numbers were reserved for public purposes like erection of markets and building of shops. The District Board, Chingleput, was appointed as the responsible authority under the scheme for its due execution. Subsequently, the Tambaram Panchayat Board became the successor responsible authority for the due execution of the scheme. The period for the function of the responsible authority was extended for ten years upto 10th June, 1963. As the aforesaid two survey numbers had not been owned by the Panchayat or acquired by it as contemplated under the scheme, the Government authorised the Panchayat in 1948 to lease out the lands till 1956 -57. Subsequently, as per G.O. N0.2779, Health, dated 11th September, 1957, the Government authorised the Panchayat to lease out upto the end of 1957 -58. Thereafter, no such authority was given. Acting upon the authority given originally, the Panchayat leased out portions of the survey numbers to various persons who have put up constructions on the plots leased to them and collected rent. In the course of such collection of rent, disputes arose between the lessees on the one hand and the Panchayat on the other, and as a result of the dispute, some lessees claiming to be the representatives of all the lessees instituted O.S.No. 40 of 1956 on the file of the Sub -Court Chingleput, impleading the Panchayat as a defendant, and prayed for an injunction restraining the Panchayat from interfering with their rights and from asking them to execute lease deeds or to pay rent. That suit was dismissed. One of the grounds of dismissal was that the tenants were estopped from denying the title of the Panchayat. The matter was taken up in appeal and the District Judge, Chingleput, concurring with the view of the trial Judge, dismissed the appeal. There was a further appeal to this Court in S.A. No. 297 of 1958. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the State of Madras was impleaded as a party. Jagadisan, J., before whom the appeal came up held that the persons who had filed the suit having come into possession as lessees under the Panchayat were estopped from denying the title of the Panchayat during the subsistence of the lease and dismissed the second appeal. For arrears of rent which accrued subsequently the Panchayat filed some small cause suits which were decreed. Against those decrees, some tenants filed civil revision petitions which also were dismissed by Jagadisan, J., holding that the tenants were barred by the principle of estoppel from denying the title of the Panchayat to collect the rent.

(2.) THE persons in possession did not pay rent subsequently, and thereupon the Panchayat instituted a batch of original suits and another batch of small cause suits, at first impleading only those, who according to the panchayats, were in possession as lessees. During the pendency of the suits, the Collector of Chingleput, was impleaded as the second defendant in each suit. The Government Pleader on entering appearance for the Collector, Chingleput, endorsed on the plaints that the Government had no objection to the passing of decree in favour of the Panchayat and that if a decree could not be granted in favour of the Panchayat, decree may be passed in favour of the Government. The persons who are in possession and who have been impleaded as the first defendant in each of the suits contended that the Panchayat had no right to maintain the suits, that they were not estopped from denying the title of the Panchayat, as the revenue officials had issued B memos, to them treating them as trespassers and threatening eviction, that in those circumstances they had to pay kist to the Government and that, therefore, they were not liable to pay arrears of rent.

(3.) THE District Munsif, Chingleput, who tried the original suits as one batch and the small cause suits as another batch, held that the suits were maintainable by the Panchayat, and that the plea that the Panchayat had no right to maintain the suits could not be put forward by reason of the bar of estoppel. On the question of limitation, which was one of the pleas raised in defence, the District Munsif found that the entire claim was in time In the result, he decreed all the suits.