A S N NAINA PILLAI MARAKAYAR; GOPALA THEVAN; PAZANITHEVAN Vs. TAR ARMRAMANATHAN CHETTIAR; RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR; RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have arisen out. of three suits brought, by the same plaintiffs. The suits were tried together and were disposed of by the Temporary Safe, ordinate Court of Tanjore in the plaintiff s favour by one and the fame judgment-Appeal Suit No. 248 of 1914 was filed directly in the High Court. The other the appeals were filed in the Tanjore District. Court and were transferred o this Court to he heard along with Appeal Suit No.- 248 of 1914.

(2.) (2) The suits were brought in ejectment by five of the six trustees pf the Manthrapureeswaramswamy temple, the 6th trustee who did not care to join in the suits he being impleaded as one pf the defendants in each suit (2nd, 3rd and 5th defendant respectively). He allo(sic)ed all the three suits to proceed ex parte so far as he was concerned.

(3.) (3) The plaints and the written statements of the contesting defendants are very similar in all the suits. Thirteen issues are common to the three suits. In one of the suits (Appeal Suit No. 115 of 1915---Original Suit No, 42 of 1913), there is one issue: "Did first defendant execute a lease deed to the trustees in 1899 in respect pf plaint item 12," which is peculiar to that suit, That issue was found IP. the affirmative by the lower court and the finding was not contested in the arguments on appeal before us. In the two other suits. (Appeal Suit No. 248 of 1914 arid No, 116 of 1915, Original Suits Nos. 40, 41 and. 61 of 1913 respectively), there is an issue as to whether improvements have Veen effected by the contesting defendants and if so, whether the said defendants are entitled to claim compensation for such improvements as a condition precedent to the passing of a decree in plaintiffs favour in ejectment and, if so, what compensation amounts are due to them. In Original Suit No, 61, the defendants let in no evidence about improvements and the issue was found against them by the lower Court and no argument in the appeal was addressed to us on that question. In the other suit (Original Suit No. 40), the learned Subordinate Judge found (a) that the 1st defendant planted trees at a cost of about Rs. 150, but (b) that there was "no evidence as to when the new trees were planted and on what plots," and (c) that the 1st defendant had, when planting the trees, no bona fide belief that he was entitled to a permanent occupancy right in the lands, he and his father-in-law (who assigned his rights to him) having been speculative alienees from several recalcitrant cultivating tenants of their respective holdings. Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act gives a right of compensation only to a transferee who bona fide believes himself to be "absolutely entitled" to a property and makes improvements in such belief. Assuming that by analogy even the person who believes himself to have a permanent occupancy fright is also similarly entitled to compensation, the question of the 1st defendant s bona fide belief (in Original Suit No. 40) largely depends on the decision of the other important common issues in the three suits. One other peculiar issue in suit No. 61 is: "Does item No. 8 belong to the temple" That was decided by the lower Court in the plaintiffs favour on the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses Nos. 3, 6 and 13 and nothing was urged before us which could induce us to give a different finding on that question.