THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF RAMANATHAPURAM AT MADURAI AND ANOTHER Vs. RAMALINGASWAMIGAL MADAM, REPRESENTED BY N.P.K. PARAMASIVA THEVAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Madras is the appellant in these second appeals, which came up originally before Natesan, J., who considered it desirable that they should be decided by a Division Bench, in view of the conflicting decisions as to the jurisdiction of civil Courts to give declaration of title in respect of property included in an estate taken over by the Government by virtue of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as " the Act.

(2.) IT is really unnecessary to deal with the concurrent findings of fact in both these second appeals and, in fact, Natesan, J., has in his orders of reference in these second appeals, observed that there has been no challenge before him with regard to the findings on the merits of the title put forward by the plaintiff in each of the second appeals. It is sufficient to refer to the findings of fact to appreciate the question of jurisdiction raised in these second appeals.

(3.) RAMALINGA Swamigal Madam, represented by its trustee is the plaintiff, respondent in S.A. No. 1149 of 1962. The Madam is situated in a portion of Survey No. 114 in Sivaganga Estate, which formed the subject -matter of the suit. Even in January, 1938, the Sivaganga Estate recognised the actual enjoyment of the suit property by the Madam and assigned the same to the plaintiff subject to payment of rent Re. 1 per acre, besides cesses. S.No. 114 now stands sub -divided into S. No. 114/1 measuring 7 cents and S. No. 114/2 measuring 3 acres 48 cents. The State of Madras, the defendant -appellant, pleaded that S. No. 114/1 was occupied by Udayanatchiamman Koil worshipped by the Harijans and that S. No. 114/2 contained a public Oorani, a burial ground for the Asari community and another burial ground for the Brahmins and claimed the entire suit property as a communal poramboke property. After the Abolition Act, the respondent sought recognition of its title. On 29th December, 1953, the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Sivaganga, informed the plaintiff -respondent that its petition would be considered at the time of enquiry under Section 11 of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer Sivaganga passed the order Exhibit B -4 dated 25th June, 1954 purporting to act suo motu, and also on the petition of Sutha Chaitanya Swamigal, holding that no one was entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the suit property. There is nothing, to show that this order was communicated to the plaintiff -respondent till it was sent to it by way of a reply to the suit notice. The Courts below found that it had been : established by ample evidence that the suit property was only the private property of the plaintiff -Madam by reason of the assignment made by the Sivaganga. Estate, and this finding is one of fact, which was not the subject of challenge before Natesan, J., when the second appeal came up before him.