R. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR, THROUGH POWER AGENT SUBBIAH CHETTIAR Vs. K.R. RATHINAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil miscellaneous second appeals arise under the following circumstances:

(2.) THE appellant herein was the Inamdar of Thenkarai village in Ramanathapuram District. Originally, this village was sought to be notified under the Madras Estates Abolition Act and the Settlement Officer made enquires to find out if the village was an inam estate within the meaning of the Act. The respondents herein and other tenants participated in the enquiry by leading evidence. Ultimately, the Settlement Officer, by his order dated 24th September, 1949, held that Thenkarai village was not an inam estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948). The view of the Settlement officer was that the grant of Thenkarai village comprised of both the warams and, therefore, the Act was not applicable.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals and quashed the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal as well as the notification made by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act. The basis of this decision was that the Thenkarai village was not an inam within the meaning of the Estates Abolition Act. Thereupon, the State of Tamil Nadu preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. By its judgment dated 20th September 1965, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, after holding that the village concerned was really an inam within the meaning of the Estates Abolition Act. In pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Government of Tamil Nadu published a notification on 3rd August 1966 whereby it notified the village as an estate. On 28th July, 1969, the District Munsif, Sivaganga, dismissed O. S. Nos. 292 to 339 of 1957 on the ground that the estate had been notified, and therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits by the inamdar for recovery of arrears of rent due. This view was taken because Under Section 55 of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, after the notified date, the landholder shall not be entitled to collect any rent which accrued due to him from any ryot before, and is outstanding on that date, but the manager appointed Under Section 6 shall be entitled to collect all such rent and any interest payable thereon together with any costs which may have been decreed, as if they were arrears of land revenue; and there shall be paid to the landholder all amounts so collected after deducting (a) ten per cent thereof on account of collection charges, (b) the arrears of 8peshkash, quit rent, jodi and other amount, if any, of like nature due from the landholder to the Government, and (c) the rent, if any, collected before the notified date by the landholder from the ryots in respect of the fasli year in which the estate is notified under this Act and any amount collected by the landholder from the ryots in excess of the rent determined under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 and outstanding to the credit of the ryots on the first day of the fasli year. Section 58 -A of the Act provided that no Court shall, before the date on which the deposit in pursuance of Section 54 -A is made, order or continue execution in respect of any decree or order passed against the principal or any other landholder of an estate, etc. After the dismissal of these suits, the tenants came forward with applications Under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code for restitution of the amounts they had already paid into Court in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court in the writ appeals already referred to. Both the trial Court and the first Appellate Court ordered restitution in favour of the tenants. It is against the concurrent orders of the two Courts that the present civil miscellaneous second appeals have been filed by the landholder.