DUVVURY RAMAMURTHY Vs. PABBINEEDI BULLIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, here appellant, has sued for ascertainment by division of his share of: the property, which he and defendant are at present holding in common and for ejectment of defendant from that share, on the basis that defendant is in possession of it as a non- occupancy tenant. The Lower Appellate Court returned the pLalnt for presentation to a Revenue Court.

(2.) The disposal would no doubt be appropriate, if the prayer for ejectment could be regarded separately and if that remedy were authorized by the Madras Estates Land Act in the circumstances. But the Act provides for the grant of relief only in respect of holdings; and the definition of holding in Section 3(3) by reference to parcels entails in our opinion that only ascertained holdings are contemplated. This is consistent with Chapter X and is supported by the interpretation placed on the similar provision of the law in Bengal in Sreemati Parbaty Debya V/s. Mathura Nath Bannerjee 16 C.W.N. 877. Until the plaintiff has had the holding, in respect of which he asks for ejectment, ascertained, it will be meaningless for him to approach a Revenue Court; and this is the real substance of the compLalnt he makes against the lower court's direction to him to do so, that Revenue Court cannot grant partition.

(3.) We may at this point observe that the opinion of the Full Bench in Sri Gadadhara Das Bavaji Mahant V/s. Suryanarayana Patnik (1921) 41 M.L.J. 97: 44 M. 677 would appear on the pleadings to be fatal to plaintiff's prayer for ejectment. That however is no reason why he should be refused the other relief to which he appears to be entitled.