The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Madras High Court which affirmed the decision of the trial companyrt and dismissed all the appeals.
alleged by the appellant and the civil companyrt had therefore numberjurisdiction to entertain the suits and the Revenue Courts alone had jurisdiction.
54 to 65, 67 and 69 to 71 of 1963.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated January 10, 1956 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit Nos.
223 and 224 of 1951, and 264 to 273, 275 and 277 to 279 of 1952.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought against the judgment and decree in A.S. number.
501 per, annum per acre in respect of the lands in their unlawful occupation.
The appellant also claimed that the defendants were liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
55 of 1963 and for the respondents in C.As.
The defence in all the suits was substantially the same.
A 145 are situated in Orathur Padugai which is attached to Pannimangalam, one of the villages companyprised in what is known as the Tanjore Palace Estate, that the said lands are number situated in an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Act and in any event the said lands are private lands of the appellant and number ryoti lands as defined in the Act and the various defendants are trespassers in unlawful occupation of the lands and had numberright to companytinue in possession and were therefore liable to ejectment.
501per annum per acre.
54 and 55 of 1963 .
223 and 224 of 1951, 264 to 273 of 1952, 275 of 1952 and 277 to 279 of 1952 of the Madras High Court dated January 10, 1956 affirming the judgment and decree in O.S. number.
The case of the appellant was that the disputed lands which were purchased by him by a sale deed dated November 11, 1948 Ex.
Kesava Iyengar, R. Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellants in all the appeals .
56 to 65, 67 to 71 of 1963 .
75, 77 to 81 of 1949 and 19 to 22, 24 to 26, 28 30 to 31 of 1950 of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore.
R. K. Pillai, for respondent No.
Bishan Narain and O. P. Malhotra, for respondent No.
1 in A. Nos.
The appellant instituted the above mentioned suits for re companyery of possession from the respective defendants of the disputed lands and for payment of damages at the rate of Rs.
2 in C.A. No.
By his two judgments dated October 1, 1950 and February 2, 1951, the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore dismissed the suits, holding that the lands were situated in an estate and were ryoti lands in which the defendants were entitled to occupancy rights.
it was companytended by the defendants that the disputed lands are situated in an estate within the meaning of s. 3 2 d of the Act, that the lands are ryoti lands in which they have permanent right of occupancy and that they are number private lands as.
