CHIGURUPATI VENKATASUBBIAH Vs. RAVI PUNNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises the question whether section 56 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) (herein after called the Act) ousts the jurisdiction of civil Courts to entertain the suit 1 which one of the issues relates to rights of occupancy. This was answered in the negative by the trial Court. That view of the Subordinate Judge is challenged before us.

(2.) The respondents filed a suit for ejectment and for mesne profits against defendants 1 to 6, defendants 2 to 6 being the sons of the 1st defendant. The moments in the suit are to the effect that the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-in-wit (7th defendant) was given a patta by the land-holder in respect of the lands in or about the year 1944 and consequently, she acquired rights in (me lands as an occupancy tenant. Subsequently, she leased out this holding to the 1st defendant the manager of the family and this was renewed for a further period of four years in or about the year 1949. After the determination of the lease, the defendants did not surrender possession of the property, he plaintiffs purchased the rights of the 7th defendant for valuable considerate and filed the suit for recovering possession of the lands.

(3.) One of the defences, to the suit with which we are now concerned is that a civil Court is not competent to take cognisance of the suit as it involved a dispute which could be determined only by the Settlement Officer who is invested with exclusive jurisdiction in this behalf by section 56 of the Act. This plea was founded on the allegations that the grant of patta to the 7th defendant was not bona fide, that it was benami for the land-holder who is no other than her husband and so the real lessor was the zamindar himself with the result that it was the family of the 1st defendant that had obtained rights of occupancy in respect thereof. This was tried as a preliminary issue and was found in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 to 6 who were dis-satisfied with this order have brought the matter in revision.