AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishnan, J.—In this case the point taken before me is that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to grant, mesne profits in the way the lower
Courts have done as the plaintiffs are entitled only to such profits-as can be claimed under Clause 2 of Section 163 of the Madras Estates Land
Act under which insane profits have to be ascertained by the Collector u/s 45, and reliance is placed upon the ruling in Kotikalapudi Kattayya Vs.
Sree Rajah Venkataramayya Row Bahadur and Another, , if the land in question were ryoti land the argument may be sound, but the finding of
both the lower Courts is that this land is not ryoti laiid because, it is not ordinarily cultivable. The learned appellate judge says that it is a sort of
waste land usually submerged in water in the rainy season and not under cultivation at all On that finding Section 163 will not apply and there will
be no ground for objecting to the Civil Courts ascertaining the mesne profits due. It is however contended before me that as the land has been
actually cultivated by the appellant for some years, it must be taken to be cultivable land, and being in a zamindari estate, it must be treated as a
ryoti land and the findings to the contrary by the District Judge should not be accepted. Ryoti land is defined in the Estates Land Act as meaning
cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include tank beds, thrashing floor etc. It certainly does not include waste land where
no cultivation is ordinarily carried on. In Section 6 Clause 4 waste land and grazing land are treated as lands in which a person cannot get
permanent rights of occupancy. This has been pointed out by the learned judge in Raja of Venkatagiri v. Ayyappa Reddi [1913] 38 Mad. 738.
Their observations are found at pages 740 & 741. When the definition of ryoti land speaks of cultivable land it seems to me that it means land that
is ordinarily and usually cultivated and does not refer to waste land though even waste land can at times be cultivated with labour and expenditure
of money, I think that the finding of the lower Court that this land is not ryoti land is correct.
The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.