LAWS(PVC)-1936-10-64

SREEMADH DEIVASIGAMANI PONNAMBALA DESIKAR, HEAD OF TIRUVANNAMALAIMUTT Vs. RAJA SRIMATHU MUTHU VIJAYAREGUNATHA DORAISINGAM ALIAS GOURI VALLABHA THEVAR, ZAMINDAR OF SIVAGANGA THROUGH THE ESTATE COLLECTOR

Decided On October 07, 1936
SREEMADH DEIVASIGAMANI PONNAMBALA DESIKAR, HEAD OF TIRUVANNAMALAIMUTT Appellant
V/S
RAJA SRIMATHU MUTHU VIJAYAREGUNATHA DORAISINGAM ALIAS GOURI VALLABHA THEVAR, ZAMINDAR OF SIVAGANGA THROUGH THE ESTATE COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Pandarasannadhi of the Kunnakudi Mutt for the purpose of getting a decision by an appellate Survey Officer (dated 22nd September, 1924) set aside in some respects. There are two villages which may be referred to as M and A. M belongs to the Kunnakudi Mutt of which the plaintiff is the Pandarasannadhi and is a Dharmasanam village in the Sivaganga estate. A belongs to a Devastanam in the Sivaganga estate and the Zamindar is the trustee thereof. The second defendant is an alienee from the Zamindar.

(2.) Survey operations were started in this locality in 1922 or 1923. It is not clear from the records whether the proceedings were started when Act IV of 1897 was in force or after Act VIII of 1923 came into force. It may be a question of some difficulty whether in dealing with the effects of the survey, the Court should apply the provisions of Act IV of 1897 or those of Act VIII of 1923. There is reason to think that there is some marked difference between the two acts in respect of the effect of the survey, if a suit is not brought within three years allowed by the Act. We do not pursue that question further because in the present instance the suit was undoubtedly filed within three years of the decision of the appellate survey officer.

(3.) In the plaint as originally framed only the Zamindar was the defendant; the second defendant was later on impleaded as an alienee from the Zamindar subsequent to the institution of the suit. There is a statement in paragraph 9 of the plaint that: The lands in dispute are warapat punja lands in the holding of the various pattadars of the village and there have been for a long number of years exchange of pattas and muchilikas in respect of the suit lands and the mutt as well as the lessees from the mutt have been in enjoyment of the same by collecting the waram, etc., due to them.