Madapaty Venkateswara Row Pantulugaru vs Nandum Rajagopalam

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.—The respondent is unrepresented. The suit was by the proprietor to recover kattubadi from a minor inamdar. The District Munsif held that, having regard to Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, the plaint ought to have been presented to the Revenue Court. On the authorities which have been cited before me this conclusion is wrong. In Gopisetti Narainsawmi Naidu v. Tallanraju Vencatusubrayudu 9 Ind. Cas. 642 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 233 : 9 M.L.T. 315 under similar circumstances it was decided that a suit for kattubadi is not beyond the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts. In Second Appeal No. 716 of 1913 a similar conclusion was come to with reference to quit rent. There is no allegation in this case that the inamdar is also a cultivator. Under these circumstances the decision of the District Munsif is wrong. It must be set aside and the District Munsif must be asked to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law.