YEDITHA BHUPATIRAJU Vs. BHAVARAJU VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that comes for decision in these Civil Revision Petitions is whether two suits (O. S. Nos. 121 and 122 of 1916) instituted for the recovery of the rent or damages for the use and occupation of lands enjoyed by the defendants for three years before suit fall within the cognizance of a Revenue or a Civil Court. The initial presumption is in favour of the civil court having jurisdiction (See Seetharn Naidu V/s. Rami Naidu (1909) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 208. The suits were instituted in a civil court and the onus lay on the defendants to show that that Court's jurisdiction was ousted by Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which reserves to Collectors the jurisdiction over suits and I applications of the nature specified in the schedules to the Act. In schedule A item No. 8 relates to suits by a landholder to recover arrears of rent under Section 77. There. fore the answer to the above question depends on the further question whether the plaintiffs are landholders, as the word is denned in Section 3(5) of the Act. The District Munsif held that the plaintiffs were landholders and directed the plaints to be returned for presentation in a Revenue court, and on appeal the District Judge confirmed this order.

(2.) It is not pretended that the suit lands themselves are major inams or whole inam villages constituting an estate within the definitions in Section 3 Clause 2 Sub-clauses (d) or (e), but they lie within a Zamindari, which is an estate under Sub-clause (a). Landholder is denned in Clause 5 of Section 3 as a person owning an estate or part thereof and as including every person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner.

(3.) The plaintiffs hold the suit lands by virtue of a grant from the zemindar of Guttinadeevi made in the years 1837 and 1839 as evidenced by the pattas, Exhibits A series, the fetters, Exhibits B series and the check namas Exhibits C series.