SUBRAMANIAN CHETTY Vs. VIJIA RAGHUNATHA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In substance the case set up by the plaintiff in this suit was that, instead of exercising his admitted right to collect rent at a fixed rate from the royts of Manjoori village for fishing in the village tank, he had a right to catch the fish himself to the exclusion of those royts who had hitherto been enjoying this privilege, or to lease out the fishery to strangers. In the plaint, after setting out his title, which is based on a seventy years lease of the village of Manjoori from the Rajah of Ramnad (vide Exhibits A and B), he proceeded to allege that the defendants had obstructed him in the enjoyment of his alleged fishery rights, and to ask for a declaration of his title and for an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his enjoyment, and for damages.

(2.) The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff s suit, finding on the first issue that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the fishery in the plaint tank. This finding would have been enough for the dismissal of the suit. There were also other issues. The sixth issue raised the question whether the plaintiff or his pre-decessor-in-title had exclusive possession of the fishery within 12 years before suit. The District Munsif found this issue also against the plaintiff and added that the ryots had, by long enjoyment, acquired a prescriptive right to the fishery, which was a finding that did not arise out of the issue as framed.

(3.) On appeal the Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff had failed to establish either title or enjoyment within the statutory period and he dismissed the appeal on both grounds.