GOVINDA NAIDU Vs. CHENGALROYA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are simple. The suit lands are ryoti lands in an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act. Chengama Naidu, the landholder in 1870, purchased the kudivaram interest. In fasli 1318, the lands were let to the 1 defendant for cultivation for a year. Thereafter, the 1 defendant continued in possession under yearly leases also agreeing to relinquish possession of the lands at the end of the year. On 17 June, 1917 the plaintiffs purchased the lands and now seek to eject the 1 defendant.

(2.) The question referred to us is :--Is Section 153 of the Estates Land Act exhaustive, and does it oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in all cases where it is sought to eject a non-occupancy ryot ?

(3.) For the purpose of discussing Section 153, I will at once assume (without deciding) that the defendant is a non-occupancy ryot. Phillips, J., gave some reasons for holding that he is not a ryot at all. There is considerable force in his observations. Assuming, however, that he is a non-occupancy ryot, we have the following classes of non-occupancy ryots under the Act: (1) A ryot of old waste [ Section 6 (3)]. (2) A ryot of waste land reclaimed by the landlord for a period of thirty years for the reclamation [ Section 6 (5).] (3) A person admitted under Section 8(4), the case be-fore us.