He claimed to have become entitled to a permanent right of occupancy by virtue of the provisions of Section 6, Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908 .
In the written statement the respondent pleaded that in spite of fine Clause in the muchilika by which the lessee had undertaken to surrender possession of the leased lands by 30 6 1948 he was entitled to companytinue in possession and management thereof with a right of permanent occupancy therein.
A number of issues were framed in the case.
It was alleged that the plaintiff had entered into possession of the suit properties after the expiry of the lease, and part of the land had actually been brought under cultivation, that the respondent defendant was threatening to take forcible possession of the properties which he had numberright in law to do.
The lease expired on 30 6 1948.
It was alleged that the land had number been surrendered to the landholder on the expiry of the lease.
Before the expiry of the three years period the respondent filed Summary Suit No.
By an order dated 28 7 1950 passed on this application by the High Court the plaintiffs suit was dismissed in toto.
As a result of this decision the High Court directed the return of the plaint with a direction that it be presented to the proper Court which had jurisdiction to hear it.
It was companytended that the suit land was and is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 2 d of the Act as amended by Act 18 of 1936 and was within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act.
87 of 1948 in the revenue Court for grant of a patta in respect of the suit land on the allegation that he had acquired permanent rights of occupancy against the landholder.
During the pendency of this summary suit, on 4 8 1948 the plaintiff appellant filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the appellants possession of the land in suit.
An application was made for an amendment of the order and praying that the suit be remanded to the Subordinate Judge for trial of the remaining portion of issue 1 and issues 2 to 5.
Issue 1 was in these terms Whether the suit lands are ryoti lands in a whole inam village, and whether first defendant has acquired occupancy rights thereon.
Mahajan, J. This appeal arises in the following circumstances Under a muchilika dated 1 8 1945 the respondent took on lease from the appellant the land in suit for a period of three years on the fixed rental mentioned therein.
