CHERUKUR CHINA VENKATASUBBA NAIDU Vs. KANDADI SUNDARA VARADACHARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are 30 plaintiffs who sued to have their occupancy rights declared to several items of property detailed in plaint schedule A. After issues were framed, the District Munsiff in a considered order found that the plaint was bad for multifariousness and misjoinder of parties so far as plaint A schedule lands were concerned. The petitioners all sought the same relief as regards B schedule lands holding that they were lands enjoyed in common. The learned District Munsiff found that the suit was not bad as regards B schedule either for multifariousness or for misjoinder.

(2.) The plaint is interesting and has been keenly argued before me. Mr. Kuppuswami for the petitioners contends that the pleadings raise in question a common issue, namely, whether this shrotriam estate comes within the definition of Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and urges that if that is so, Section 6 of the Estates Land Act will automatically confer occupancy rights on the plaintiffs. He also urges that in the plaint there is an allegation of conspiracy amongst the inamdars who have been impleaded as defendants 1 to 7 to defeat the occupancy rights of the petitioners by collusive action in the shape of leases to defendants 9 to 13 to the prejudice of the petitioners rights.

(3.) The main consideration which weighed with the District Munsif was that all the plaintiffs could not be said to be interested in all the plaint A schedule lands. It is urged that there will be embarrassment in the trial of the suit, particularly as in the written statements there are contentions that some of the plaintiffs are not in actual possession of the lands that they claimed. The main issues framed however in the suit appear to me to be common to all the plaintiffs, and none of them really bring out any particular differences between an individual plaintiff and the shrotriamdars in general. The issues framed were: (1) Whether the plaint A schedule lands are ryoti lands within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs have got occupancy rights therein ? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming the occupancy rights ? (4) Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit ? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to customary rights to graze cattle on the B schedule lands ? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ? (7) Whether the plaintiffs can ask for injunction without claiming possession of the B schedule lands; and (8) Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and is liable to be dismissed on that ground ?