B 4 on 25.6.1954 that Survey No.
The State of Tamil Nadu resisted the suit on merits by companytending that the suit land was companymunal land and that the assignment or grant by the Zamindar in favour of plaintiff Madam was invalid a well as by raising a technical plea that the decision of the Additional Settlements Officer that the suit land was Pmorboke and number ryoti land was final and the Civil Courts jurisdiction to decide that question was barred under s.64 C of the Act.
1633 of 1971 also, after an adverse order had been passed by the Settlement Officer to the effect that the land in question was neither a ryoti land en Ramnad Zamindari number the private property of erstwhile Zamindar, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title to the suit land based on a registered sale deed and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession.
114 was number a ryoti land on the numberified date but had been registered as a Poromboke village companymunal land and, therefore, numberone was entitled to Ryotwari Patta in respect of it.
In that suit one of the issues raised pertained to the nature or character of the suit land, whether it was a ryoti land in the erstwhile Ramnad Zimindari which had been taken over under the Act or a Poromboke companymunal property and the plea was that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to decide this question in view of s. 64 C. The Trial Court held that the suit property was Poromboke property and dismissed the suit but in appeal preferred by the plaintiffs the Sub Judge held that it was ryoti land and plaintiffs title and possession thereto had been proved but the suit was barred under s. 64 C of the Act and on this basis he companyfirmed the dismissal of the suit.
The Plaintiff Madam claimed title to the suit land on the basis of its long and uninterrupted possession since prior to 1938 as also under an Order of Assignment Ex.
Aggrieved by the order the Plaintiff Madam filed the suit for a declaration of its title and right to companytinue in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, subject to payment of Ryotwari or other case to be imposed by Government without any interference from the Government.
It appears that the plaintiff Madam applied on 25.11.1953 for a Ryotwari Patta in respect of this land after the abolition of the Sivaganga Estate under the Act and the Additional Settlement Officer merely informed the Plaintiff Madam that its petition would receive companysideration when s. 11 inquiry would be taken up.
From the judgment and decree dated 17.6.69 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
114 and for an injunction restraining the State of Tamil Nadu Defendant Appellant from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the same.
In the other matter Civil Appeal No.
184 of 1959 in the Court of District Munsiff at Manamadurai for declaration of its title to the suit land admeasuring 3.55 acres being a portion of Survey No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.6.
1633 of 1971.
1 per acre and an annual rent of Re.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
1968 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
The High Court in second appeal accepted the findings of the 1st Appellate Court on merits of the plaintiffs claim and on the question of Civil Courts jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the real nature or character of the suit land it followed the Division Bench decision in the earlier matter and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide that question and allowed the appeal.
1633 of 1971.
In this case one Ramalinga Samigal Madam, a religious Math through its trustee Sutha Chaitnya Swamigal filed a suit O.S. No.
Parthasarthy for the Respondent in C.A. No.
474 of 1971.
Gopal Snbramanium and Mrs. S. Balakrishnan for the Respondent in C.A. No.
4747/1.
1149 of 1962.
The ma I facts giving rise to the question in both the appeals are almost similar and therefore, it will suffice if facts obtaining in Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. These appeals raise a companymon question of law for our determination, namely, whether a Civil Courts jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land in respect whereof a Ryot has sought a Ryotwari Patta under s. 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948 for short the Act is ousted or barred under s. 64 C of that Act ?
In view of the importance of the question the learned Single Judge referred the case to the Division Bench who negatived the companytention and dismissed the appeal.
1773 of 1964.
1 per acre beside cesses and a Teervapat Cowle Patta was directed to be issued in favour of its trustee Sutha Chaithya Swamigal.
474 of 1971 are alluded to in details.
But subsequently, without reference to the Plaintiff Madam the Additional Settlement Officer passed an order Ex.
A 1 dated 29.1.1938 issued in its favour by the Zamindar of the erstwhile Sivaganga Estate whereby the Kudi right i.e. right to cultivate in that land was granted to it subject to the payment of a numberinal nuzzur of Re.
