YAMUJALA MANGAMMA Vs. KALYANAPU APPADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of O.S. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Vizianagaram which had been filed with regard to two different plots of land in Seetharamudupeta Agraharam of the Vizianagaram taluk. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 98 was one Mangamma, who claimed to be the owner of the plots and treated the defendants in that suit as tenants holding over. The other suit was filed by Mangamma's lessee against the sub-lessees. The defence in both the suits was that the suit land was part of an estate, that the defendants had therefore occupancy rights and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The learned District Munsiff accepted this contention and returned the plaints for presentation to the Revenue Court. The District Judge on appeal confirmed the order in O.S. No. 98 of 1943, but with regard to the other suit while accepting the finding of the trial Court that the land concerned in it formed part of an estate, he was of the opinion that as the contest in that case was between the lessee of the landholder and his sub-lessees the question of occupancy right did not arise unless the sub- lessee could be regarded as a ryot within the meaning of that expression in the Estates Land Act. He therefore remanded the suit for the determination of that question. It is stated that on remand the Munsiff held that the sub-lessees were ryots and that the order returning the plaint became final. The order of the District Munsiff returning the plaints was passed on 22nd April, 1944. The appeal by Mangamma was dismissed on 2nd December, 1944, while the order of the Munsiff after remand in the other suit was passed on 22nd December, 1944. On 2nd January, 1945, the plaintiffs re-presented the plaints in the Revenue Court and obtained decrees. They filed suits in the Revenue Court for rent of the subsequent faslis also and realised a portion of the amount due. In the meantime they filed these revision petitions within the time allowed by law.

(2.) Two preliminary objections are raised by the respondents. One is that the revision petitions cannot be heard in view of Madras Act XVII of 1946 and the other that the petitioners having filed suits in Revenue Courts not only for the faslis covered by the civil revision petitions but also for the subsequent faslis are barred from questioning the decision of the Courts below. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Act XVII of 1946 does not apply to this case. As regards the other point it is argued that the suits had been filed not only for rent but for possession and though decrees were obtained for rent still the relief of possession has yet to be granted and that is why the revision petitions have been filed, and that their having obeyed the order of the Courts below and presented the plaints in the Revenue Courts does not debar them from filing these petitions. It is said that they obeyed the order of the lower Court because they could not be certain as to when the revision petitions would be heard and disposed of, that as a matter of fact they have not been disposed of till now and they could not possibly take the risk of their claim for rent getting time-barred as the period spent in pursuing the matter in the revision would not be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) In my opinion the preliminary objections have to fail. Act XVII of 1946 grants protection to the ryots under the Estates Land Act in respect of the sale of the holding. The reasons given for their having obeyed the order of the Court when the plaints were returned to them are sound. No decision has been cited on behalf of the respondents to show that the right of bringing this matter to this Court in revision is barred if the order returning the plaint is obeyed. On the other hand, in Satyanarayanamurthi V/s. Maharajah of Pithapur it was held that where a person files suits in a Civil Court for ejectment and mesne profits treating the person in occupation as a tenant continuing wrongfully in possession after notice to quit but the plaints were returned to be presented to the Revenue Court on the defendants contending that they had the kudivaram rights as all the lands were part of an estate and the plaints when returned were presented forthwith in the Revenue Court but the claims for faslis beyond three years had become barred, Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not apply with regard to those faslis.