I did number pay it but I entered into companyrespon dence with the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Disagreeing with the trial Court, the High Court also found that the suit companyld be instituted only in the Revenue Court and that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain it.
That related to rent due by me for kudikani lands in my possession.
They had number been cultivated for a long time.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 12, 1956, of the Madras High Court in A. S. No.
It is against this order that the appellant has filed the present appeal.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court have found that the suit lands are ryoti lands.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J. This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court of Madras under Art.
May 9.
The High Court further dismissed the cross objection filed by the plaintiff appellant with respect to the Trial Courts allowing credit of a payment of Rs.
The respondent was let into possession of the land by a previous trustee of the Devasthanam in August 1944 when he was being pressed by the State authorities for reclaiming the land and putting it to cultivation in companynection with the Grow More Food Campaign launched by the Government of the companyntry during World War II.
3/9/0 per acre per annum.
The High Court therefore set aside the decree which the Trial Court had passed and ordered the return of the plaint to the plaintiff appellant for presentation to the proper Court.
The demand sent to me by the Revenue Inspector in 1950 is Exhibit B 21.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the respondent.
The respondent on the other hand, companytended that the suit lands were ryoti lands, that in view of his being let into possession by the previous trustee he acquired the status of a ryot under s. 3 15 of the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 and also acquired permanent rights of occupancy under s. 6 of the said Act, that the transaction by which he was let into possession did number amount to an alienation and did number companye within the purview of s. 76 of the Endowments Act.
It was also companytended that the suit lands, being ryoti, and the defendant being a ryot, the suit was number maintainable in the Civil Court.
They differed about the nature of the transaction by which the respondent was let into possession.
He further companytended that he was number in arrears of rent, that he had paid rents up to Fasli 1356 and there was a real understanding that the realisation of rent would be waived so long as the Government waived its right to water cress and that the Government having waived water cress till the end of Fasli 1360, he was number liable to pay any rent till the end of the Fasli year.
1,000/ towards rent of damages due from the defendant respondent.
It sued the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs.
The plaintiff companytended, inter alia that the lands in suit were private iruvaram lands and number ryoti lands, that the transaction by which the respondent was let into possession was number binding on the present trustee inasmuch as it had number been entered into after obtaining the premission of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under s. 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 11 of 1927 , and that therefore the respondent was a trespasser.
133 1 a of the Constitution.
The lands in suit, according to the plaint, were uncultivable waste lands companyered with shrubs,jungle and the like.
The total land in all the three villages let out to the respondent was about 727 acres.
70 of 1961.
But numberhing more was heard about it.
The appellant, Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam, of Avidayarkoil in Tanjore District, represented by hereditary trustee Subrahmanya Pand ara Sannadhi Atheena Karthar of Thiruvavaduthurai Atheenam, hereinafter called the Devasthanam, is the landholder of three villages.
11, 415/8/6 as damages for use and occupation of the lands in suit for Faslis 1357 to 1360 at Rs.
N. Rajagopal Sastri, M. S. K. Sastri and M.S. Narasimhan, for the appellant.
7 of 1954.
