PILLUTLA NARASIMHAYYA Vs. MOLAKALAPALLI PERAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The respondent was granted a decree by the lower Court declaring that he was entitled to permanent rights of occupancy in four items of land. The case set out in the plaint is that the lands in question which are in the village of Vallur are ryoti lands ; the said village is an estate and the plaintiff the ryot in possession, within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908). The plaintiff sought a similar declaration in respect of another item also but it was refused to him by the lower Court on the ground that he was not in possession of that item on the date of the suit and that part of the decree of the lower Court is questioned by a memo. of cross-objections in this appeal. The cause of action for the present suit as stated in the plaint is that the defendant denied the plaintiff's permanent right of occupancy in the lands and was attempting in assertion of his own title, to alienate them.

(2.) The only point argued before us is whether the suit as framed is maintainable in a civil Court in view of the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948). As we have reached a conclusion in favour of the appellant on this point and it is sufficient to dispose of the appeal, we are not dealing with the merits of the controversy which indeed have not been debated before us. Before proceeding to give our reasons for our conclusion, it is necessary to state that the plaint, which had been presented on 11th July, 1951, was amended on 21st February, 1952, so as to incorporate a statement that the disputed items:

(3.) Incidentally, it may be noted that although by the same amendment the plaintiff added that "Even in case the plaintiff were not to have permanent right of occupancy in the schedule lands he has got possessory right thereto", the relief sought upon the basis of this allegation was subsequently given up as disclosed by the order of the Court, dated 13th September, 1952 and no point was made before us of this alternative case.