ANDIAPPAN AMBALAM Vs. V E MEYYAPPAN SERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contest on this appeal lies between the respective successors in title to two lessees to each of whom a lease was granted by the same grantors on 24 January 1908. The dispute concerns 2 plots of land, the question being whether they were leased by the lease to the appellants' predecessors in title (which will be referred to as the appellants' lease) or by the lease to the respondents' predecessors in title (which will be referred to as the respondents' lease). If they are not included in the respondents' lease, they are without doubt included in the appellants' lease.

(2.) Before considering the two documents it is necessary to state some preliminary facts. The land in both leases is land in the Sivaganga Zamindari. The zamindar at the date of the leases was a minor, and his estate was under the management of the Madras Court of Wards. Zamindari was in lease to lessees. In or about the year 1894, the ryots of Karaikudi village sought to evict certain persons who had trespassed on and occupied part of the waste lands of the zamindari. The ryots alleged that the land so occupied formed part of their village, which had been leased to them by the zamindari. The ryots and the occupants purported to compromise this dispute on terms whereby the former took the melvaram right and the latter the kudivaram right. The zamindari, however, claimed that the land in question was part of Sekkalakottai village, and in the year 1901 filed a suit (no. 68 of 1901) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura East against the ryots and occupants, claiming to recover possession of the land in question. The land was described in the plaint thus : "In Sekkalakottai village Eluvankottai taluk, Tiruppattur sub-district, Madura district, west of north to south channel running to Karaikudi-Kalukatti urani; and Kottaiyur cart-track and waste land, north of the said channel and of Sekkalakottai boundary limits, east of the old boundary limits and demarcation boundary stones of Karaikudi, Kalanivasal, Sekkalakottai villages and of the Karaikudi Kanmoi (tank) channel, and south of the said channel Sekkalakottai waste lands lying within these places of about 13-4-2 Kurukkams."

(3.) Apparently it was found that this description did not clearly identify what was the land claimed in the suit, or state its boundaries with sufficient clarity. Accordingly a commissioner was appointed by the Court, who surveyed the locality in dispute. From the report (dated 17 November 1902) which he made to the Court, it is obvious that he had been accompanied on his survey by the parties, and had listened to their respective contentions. In the result he prepared a plan (F) upon which he showed the land which was in dispute in the suit coloured red. To quote from his Report-"The disputed locality in this suit is the portion marked red in the plan." The land in suit, with its boundaries, was thus definitely identified and delineated. Judgment in the suit was not delivered until 22 December, 1908. In his long and careful judgment the Judge referred to the commissioner's plan as showing the land in suit marked red, and came to the conclusion that it formed part of the village of Sekkalakottai and not of Karaikudi. He gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 (i.e. the zamindari) "declaring that the plaint land (marked red in the commissioner's plan Exhibit XI which will be attached to the decree) belongs to them." He added that plaintiff 5 would remain on the record for the purpose of continuing the suit under S.372, Civil PC Plaintiff 5 was one Karuthan, who was added as a plaintiff in the suit on 4 April 1908. The reason for his joinder, and his remaining on the record must now be explained. During the pendency of the suit, the leases in question in this appeal had been executed and registered. One of them was granted to Suppaya Servai the predecessor in title of the appellants, the other was granted to the respondents' predecessor in title, Karuthan. It is round this latter document that the present dispute centres, viz., whether it comprises more than, or only the land coloured red on the commissioner's plan. The appellants contend that it comprises only the land coloured red, while the respondents claim that in addition to the land coloured red, two plots (which the trial Judge referred to in his judgment as plots I and II) were included in it. On either view Karuthan would be a person interested in the success of the plaintiffs in the suit and he was joined as a co-plaintiff accordingly.