- (1.) THIS civil revision petition has been preferred against the order in E.P. No.39 of 1988, dated 4.5.1990, on the file of the District Munsif, Gudalur.
(2.) THE decree-holder is the petitioner herein. He has obtained a decree on 26.3.1974 in O.S. No.49 of 1973. THE decree is for delivery of possession of the property. THE execution court dismissed the execution petition, because the judgment- debtor was granted patta for the suit property under the provisions of THE Gudalur Janmam Estate etc. Act 24 of 1969 which came into force on 27.11.1974. THE judgment- debtor was a tenant under the decree-holder. THE suit was filed against the judgment-debtor by the decree-holder for delivery of possession of the suit property and the same was ordered on 26.3.1974. THE aforesaid Act came into force with effect from 27.11.1974. As per the provisions of the said Act, all the Janmam lands vested with the Government and the judgment- debtor has obtained ryotwari patta. Before this Court two petitions have been filed, (1) C.M.P. No. 1131 of 1991 to receive additional evidence produced by the petitioner, namely, order dated 14.1.1956 passed by the Collector of Nilgiris, Ootacamund assigning the suit land in favour of the judgment-debtor herein along with an annexure containing the conditions for assignment, and (2) C.M.P. No.2392 of 1996 filed by the judgment-debtor for production of two documents, namely, ryotwari patta granted to him, and the jamabandhi Chitta of the year 1987. Since there was no objection for allowing the said two petitions, they have been allowed and the documents have been marked as Exs.P-1, R-1 and R-2 respectively. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Thiru S.P. Subramaniam is that the provisions of The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act is not applicable to the present case. According to him, the land was not janmam one but it belonged to the Government and the Government assigned the land to the judgment-debtor himself, as per the assignment order Ex.P-1, from whom only the decree-holder purchased the property. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision reported in The Nilambur Kovilagam v State of Tamil Nadu, (1971)1 M.L.J. 255. The question involved in the said case was whether on account of resettlement done in the taluk of Gudalur Janmam lands became ryotwari lands or not. The court answered that the said question would depend upon the actual terms and effect of the settlement and resettlement and what was actually done in the taluk. Further, the claim of the writ petitioners was that the lands in their possession became ryotwari lands and therefore the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24 of 1969, was not applicable. But the said contention was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Baimadies Plantations Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1973)1 S.C.R. 25S. In the said case also it has contended that after the resettlement proceedings petitioner's lands became Ryotwari lands, and therefore The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24 of 1969 was not applicable. It has been held in that case that the effect of the resettlement of 1926 was to retain the Janmam estates and not to abolish the same or to convert them into ryotwari estates, and there was merely a change of nomenclature. From these two decisions, it is clear that the lands in Gudalur taluk continued to be Janmam lands and only under the provisions of the Gudalur Janmam Estate etc. Act 24 of 1969, the Government initiated steps for covering them into ryotwari lands. The aforesaid fact is also borne out from the preamble of the Act, which is as follows:'An Act to provide for the acquisition of the rights of janmis in janmam estates in the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiris district and the introduction of ryotwari settlement in such estates'. Apart from the aforesaid facts the petitioner himself admits that proceedings were initiated under the Act 24 of 1969 for grant of ryotwari patta. As is evidenced in the said proceedings the respondent herein participated and claimed ryotwari patta for him. He has been awarded patta also. At that stage the petitioner did not choose to contend before the settlement officers that the provisions of the Act 24 of 1969 were not applicable and they could not continue the proceedings. If really the petitioner felt that the land in question was not a jenmi land he would have definitely asserted his claim before the settlement officers.
(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner is untenable. Therefore, the provisions of the Act 24 of 1969 is applicable to the land in question. As per Sec.3 of the Act 24 of 1969 every janmam including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries, and ferries situated within the boundaries thereof shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all incumbrances. Secs.8, 9 and 10 provide for grant of ryotwari patta. The respondents have produced the ryotwari patta granted to them. The said patta has been produced in this Court and has been marked as Ex.R-1. Thus, the Government in which the jenmi lands vested has granted ryotwari patta in the judgment-debtor. Therefore, the title and interest of the petitioner ceased with effect from the notified date, namely 26.3.1974. The decree is dated 26.3.1974. Inasmuch as the ryotwari patta has been granted in favour of the respondent's predecessors decree obtained earlier is not executable. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the authority reported in Manicka Naicker v Elumalai Naicker, (1995)1 L. W.731. The said case is in respect of joint patta issued to both the landlord and the tenant under Sec. 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The said case does not relate to ryotwari patta. At the end of para 17 in the said judgment, it is stated as follows:'The tenant in the present case has not been granted any patta by the revenue authorities in respect of the land. The decision of the revenue authorities therefore, does not, in any manner, hinder the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction'Therefore, in the said judgment, it is clear that if a ryotwari patta was granted to the tenant by the revenue authorities in respect of the land, his contention would have been upheld. In this case as we have stated earlier, ryotwari patta has been granted by the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities have also recognized the right of the respondent as is found in Ex.R- 2. Therefore, the said judgment is also not helpful to the petitioner. In the said circumstances I have no hesitation to reject the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. ;