AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sankaran Nair, J.—The Subordinate Judge has held on the admitted facts that the suit is not cognisable by a Civil Court.
It is argued before me that this is private land and, therefore, according to Section 19 of the Madras Estates Land Act the provisions of the Act that the landlord may bring suits before the Collector, Section 77(1), and that such suits are exempted from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, Section 189, do not apply.
Plaintiff alleges in his plaint that his predecessor purchased from the tenants the Kudivaram right and was in possession of it. It is contended that he thereby became absolute owner of the property which must for this purpose be, therefore, treated as his private land.
u/s 8, Clause (3), merger of the occupancy right by transfer or succession under clauses (1) and (2) has not the effect of converting ryoti land into private land. But under clause (4) incases where such merger takes place by transfer for valuable consideration before the passing of the Act the landholder has the right of admitting any person to the possession of the land on terms that may be agreed upon between them.
In this suit, it is true, the plaintiff alleges purchase of the Kudivaram right and he may have the right of letting in a tenant within twelve years of the passing of this Act, if he legally dispossesses the tenant now in possession. The tenant so let into possession will not have any occupancy right conferred u/s 6 or the right to acquire the same u/s 46. Their rights and obligations will be regulated by the contract. Even in that case there is no provision that land becomes "private land" according to the definition.
But the defendants were tenants not let into possession after the Act was passed. It is admitted they were in possession before and at that time. They do not come, therefore, within the provision of Section 8, Clause (4).
Not being private land and the plaintiff being clearly a landholder, Section 19 does not, and Sections 77(1) and 189 do apply.
I dismiss the petition.