LAWS(MAD)-1953-11-22

POLLAPALLI VENKATARAMA RAO AND ORS. Vs. MUSUNURU VENKAYYA AND ORS.

Decided On November 09, 1953
Pollapalli Venkatarama Rao And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Musunuru Venkayya And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions came up for hearing in the first instance before a Division Bench consisting of Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed JJ. and they considered it was desirable that one of the questions involved in the petitions, namely, the construction and applicability of Sub -section (3) of Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act should be decided by a Full Bench.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this reference are as follows: The plaintiffs are the proprietors of a village called Bommaluru in the Krishna district. They filed suits against the tenants in possession of holdings in the village for an injunction restraining them from removing the paddy heaps standing on the suit lands until a due division was made of the crop and until the rent in kind payable to the plaintiffs be paid by the tenants -defendants, for effecting a division of the paddy heaps, or in the alternative for payment of the value of the plaintiffs' shares of the crop. The suits were filed in the court of the District Munsif of Bezwada. The tenants pleaded 'inter alia' that Bommaluru was an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and they had occupancy rights therein.

(3.) M . P. No. 2 of 1938 was a petition filed by 21 tenants in the village under Section 40 of the Madras Estates. Land Act for commutation of rent. In that petition, the present plaintiffs who were respondents therein, contended that Bommaluru was not an estate. The Revenue Divisional Officer decided that it was not an estate and dismissed the petition. There was a revision petition filed against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector of Krishna who dismissed it. A civil revision petition was then filed to this court, but this court dismissed it on the ground that a revision petition would not lie to the High Court. The contention of the land -holder is that the above decision of the Revenue divisional officer is binding on the civil court. Reliance is placed on Section 189 (3) of the Madras Estates Land Act. Section 189 runs thus: