- (1.) These appeals raise a common question of -law for our determination, namely, whether a Civil Court's jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land in respect whereof a Ryot has sought a Ryotwari Patta under S. 11 of the Tamil Nadu Eastates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (for short the Act) is ousted or barred under S. 64-C of that Act
(2.) The material facts giving rise to the question in both the appeals are almost similar and therefore, it will suffice if facts obtaining in Civil Appeal No. 474 of 1971 are alluded to in details. In this case one Ramalinga Samigal Madam, a religious Math through its trustee Sutha Chaitnya Swamigal filed a suit (O.S. No. 184 of 1959) in the Court of District Munsiff at Manamadurai for declaration of its title to the suit land admeasuring 3.55 acres being a portion of Survey No. 114 and for an Injunction restraining the State of Tamil Nadu (Defendant-Appellant) from. interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the same. The Plaintiff Madam claimed title to the suit land on the basis of its long and uninterrupted possession since prior to 1938 as also under an Order of Assignment (Ex. A-1) dated 29-1-1938 issued in its favour by the Zamindar of the erstwhile Sivaganga. Estate whereby the Kudi right (i.e. right to cultivate) in that land was granted to it subject to the payment of a nominal nuzzur of Re. 1/- per acre and an annual rent of Re. 1/- per acre beside cesses and a Teervapat Cowie Patta was directed to be issued in favour of its trustee Sutha Chaitanya Swamigal. It appears that the plaintiff-Madam applied on 25-11-1953 for a Ryotwari Patta in respect of this land after the abolition of the Sivaganga Estate under the Act and the Additional Settlement Officer merely informed the Plaintiff-Madam that its petition would receive consideration when S. 11 inquiry would be taken up. But subsequently, without reference to the plaintiff-Madam the Additional Settlement Officer passed an order (Ex. B-4) on 25-6-1954 that Survey No. 114 was not a ryoti land on the notified date but had been registered as a Poromboke (village communal land) and, therefore, no one was entitled to Ryotwari Patta in respect of it. Aggrieved by the order the plaintiff-Madam filed the suit for a declaration of its title and right to continue in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, subject to payment of Ryotwari or other cess to be imposed by Government without any interference from the Government. The State of Tamil Nadu resisted the suit or merits by contending that the suit land was communal land and that the assignment or grant by the Zamindar in favour of plaintiff-Madam was invalid as well as by raising a technical plea that the decision of the Additional Settlement Officer that the suit land was Poromboke and not ryoti land was final and the Civil Court's jurisdiction to decide that question was barred under S. 64-C of the Act. The Trial Court as well as the Sub-Judge in appeal accepted the plaintiffs case on merits by holding that the suit land was a ryoti land and that the assignment of Kudi right therein by the Zamindar in plaintiffs favour was valid; the technical plea of want of jurisdiction was negatived and the suit was decreed by granting the necessary declaration and injunction protecting plaintff's possession and enjoyment of the suit land. In second appeal preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu to the High Court the lower Courts' decision on the merits of the plaintiffs claim was not challenged but the technical plea of the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Civil Court in the light of S. 64C of the Act was pressed. In view of the importance of the question the learned Single Judge referred the case to the Division Bench who negatived the contention and dismissed the appeal. The Division Bench took the view that there was no provision under S. 11 read with proviso to cl. (d) of S. 3 of the Act for the ascertainment of the character of the land (whether it was ryoti land or communal Land) and that the decision of the Settlement Officer whether the land is ryoti or not is an incidental one merely for the purpose of granting the Ryotwari Patta and Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the nature of the land when that aspect is specifically put in issue, is not taken away under S. 64-C of the Act; and what is more the Division Bench further held that the plaintiffs suit was not for obtaining a ryotwari patta in its favour (which matter lay within the powers and jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer) but the suit was for injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit land on the basis of its title and long and uninterrupted possession and such relief the Civil Court could obviously grant.
(3.) In the other matter (Civil Appeal No, 1633 of 1471) also, after an adverse order had been passed by the Settlement Officer to the effect that the land in question was neither a ryoti land in Ramnad Zamindari nor the private property of erstwhile Zamindar, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title to the suit land (based on a registered sale deed) and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. In. that suit one of the issues raised pertained to the nature or character of the suit land, whether it was a ryoti land in the erstwhile Ramnad Zamindari which had been taken over under the Act or a Poromboke (communal property) and the plea was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide this question in view of S. 64-C. The Trial Court held that the suit property was Poromboke property and dismissed the suit but in appeal preferred by the plaintiffs the Sub-Judge held that it was ryoti land and plaintiffs' title and possession thereto had been proved but the suit was barred under S. 64-C of the Act and on this basis he confirmed the dismissal of the suit. The High Court in second appeal accepted the findings of the 1st Appellate Court on merits of the plaintiffs' claim and on the question of Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the real nature or character of the suit land it followed the Division Bench decision in the earlier matter and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide that question and allowed the appeal.;