DISTRICT BOARD TANJORE Vs. M K NOOR MOHAMED ROWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises in the following circumstances: Under a 'muchiliga' 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. The lease expired on 30/6/1948. Before the expiry of the three years' period the respondent filed Summary Suit No. 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 land-holder. It was alleged that the land had not been surrendered to the landholder on the expiry of the lease. 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 appellant's possession of the land in suit. 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 no right in law to do. In the written statement the respondent pleaded that in spite of the clause in the 'muchilika' by which the lessee had undertaken to surrender possession of the leased lands by 30/6/1948 he was entitied to continue in possession and management thereof with a right of permanent occupancy therein. He claimed to have become entitled to a permanent right of occupancy by virtue of the provisions of S. 6, Madras Estates Land Act (1 of 1908). It was contended that the suit land was and is an "estate" within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act as amended by Act 18 of 1938 and was within the ambit of S. 6 of the Act. A number of issues were framed in the case. Issue 1 was in these temp:

(2.) THE subordinate Judge held that the suit land did not constitute an estate as defined in S. 3 (2) (d), Madras Estates Land Act. On a petition for revision presented to the High court it was held that the suit land did constitute an estate within the meaning of the Act. 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. 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 3 to 5. By an order dated 28/7/1950 passed on this application by the High court the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in toto'. THE High court by its order dated 13/9/1950, however, greeted a certificate under Art.' 133 of the Constitution for appeal to this court.

(3.) FROM this document again it is not possible to hold that the Yerayeli grant was previous to the grant to Mudali or was contemporaneous or subsequent to it. The probability is that as both these grants refer to the 'paravangi of 1790, they may have been by the same document, but it is not possible to say in what order they were made.