AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The only question of law which arises relates to the interpretation of Sections 163 and 45 of the Madras Estates Land Act as bearing on
plaintiff''s claim to recover mesne profits a damages. In this connection we are disposed to think that the District Munsif is right and the
Subordinate Judge wrong. Section 163 is a section which specifically gives jurisdiction to the civil Court (1) to evict a trespasser and (2) to award
(as damages for the tresspass) any sum payable u/s 45."" Such a section must, in our opinion, be strictly interpreted and we do not think the civil
Court can be held to have the power to award anything else than ""the sum payable u/s 45"". But this sum where, as in ""the present case, no rent is
fixed for the land, is a sum to be determined by the Collector and by no one else and we cannot follow the Subordinate Judge''s reasoning that the
Civil Court becomes vested with the Collector''s power to fix the rent and assess the damages."" It would seem to follow that, if the land-holder''
wishes to treat the trespassers as such and to recover the mesne profits or dangers from him, he must first apply to the Collector u/s 45 to get the
amount of the latter determined and then bring his suit in the Civil Court u/s 163. This is. no doubt a cumbersome procedure but not impracticable
and in no other way do we see how to give effect; to the provisions of both sections of the Act,
On this view, we must set aside the lower Appellate Court''s order of remand and restore the decree of the District Munsif.
We make no order as to costs in this Court.