T.P. VARADARAJA MUDALIAR Vs. KANNAMMAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in C.M.A. No. 76 of 1962. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 132 of 1961 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ranipet. That plaint was returned for presentation to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, and an appeal against that order to the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in C.M.A. No. 76 of 1962 failed.

(2.) SHORTRIEM Seniyanallur Village in Cheyyar Taluk was sold by one Punyakoti Mudaliar to his wife Thripurasundariammal. Subsequently, that Shortriem estate was notified and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. Before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Thripurasundariammal's daughters, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, claimed the compensation money deposited in respect of that estate as belonging to them on the ground that the property was the Stridhana property of their mother. The present petitioner and his two other brothers, including the present third respondent, were parties before the Tribunal. In these proceedings the parties made an endorsement as follows:

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioner that the present respondents 1 and 2 having agreed before the Tribunal that the present petitioner should establish his rights to the compensation amount in appropriate proceedings, it is not open to them now to raise the contention that the civil Court has no jurisdiction. In support of this contention, the petitioner relies upon the decision in Pichuvier v. Perumal Konan, (1912) M.W.N. 163. It is contended by the respondents that what has been ordered by the Courts below is only that the suit should really be presented as a petition before the Estates Abolition Tribunal as the civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try a suit of this kind, that the parties would not raise any objection to the Tribunal dealing with and deciding this question and the Tribunal cannot shirk the responsibility of doing it. In support of this contention the respondents rely upon the decision reported in Trustee, T.T. Devasthanam v. Panckaksharam, (1959) 1 An.W.R. 69.That was a case where the Tribunal directed the parties to establish their rights in a civil Court about a matter in dispute before it. The High Court held that the Tribunal had to decide that question however difficult it may be and it cannot refer the parties to a civil Court. The respondents also relied upon the decision in Desikacharyulu v. State of A.P. : AIR 1964 SC 807 , to hold that the civil Court will have no jurisdiction to deal with or decide a question for which a specific provision is made in the Act. There is no doubt that Section 42 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act does make specific provision even for dealing with a case where the question is, who is the landholder entitled to the compensation in respect of an estate which has been taken over by the Government. The position is, of course, not disputed by the petitioner. But what is contended by the petitioner is that having agreed to have the question in dispute to be decided in appropriate proceedings, which, in the circumstances of the case, could only mean a decision by a civil Court, it is not open to the present respondent to question the jurisdiction of the civil Court, when a suit is filed before it as contemplated by the parties at the time the endorsement was made by them before the Tribunal.