Rajah Saheb Meharban I Dosthan Sree Rajah Ravu Venkatakumara Mahipathi Surya Rao Bahadur Garu, Sardar Rajahmundry Circar and Maharajah of Pithapuram vs Yedlapalli Mangamma and Others

Wadsworth, J.—This revision petition arises out of the dismissal of a suit filed for mesne profits alleged to be due on land admittedly ryoti,

situated within an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, forming part of a holding which has been sold for arrears of rent. The facts are not

very clear, but from the plaint it appears that defendants 1 to 8 in the suit were the pattadars and that there was a default and the plaintiff applied

for sale and bought the land in revenue Court auction in two sales, one on 12th September, 1931, and the other on 3rd June, 1932. From the date

of the sales defendants 9 to 17 were alleged to be cultivating the land and it is stated that this cultivation was without permission from the plaintiff.

The landlord got possession of part of the land on 25th April, 1933, and of the rest on 20th June, 1933. Having got possession, the plaintiff waited

for approximately three years and then filed the present suit in the civil Court claiming mesne profits* from all the defendants for the period

intervening between the sales and the deliveries. When objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Court, the plaintiff appears to have given up

the suit against all the other defendants and asked leave to confine his suit to the claim against the seventeenth defendant, whose legal

representatives are the respondents here. Apparently, the idea was that this plaint, which clearly is based on the termination of a tenancy and a

demand for mesne profits from the tenants and other persons in occupation, should be treated as having been ab initio based on the assertion of an

unauthorised entry at some unknown date by one only of the defendants in circumstances entirely unconnected with the tenancy, so as to enable

the plaintiff to treat him as a person whose occupation had never been either recognised or acquiesced in. Section 163 of the Madras Estates Land

Act provides the ordinary machinery whereby a landlord can recover rent and damages for unauthorised occupation of ryoti land. This section,

though not very explicit, appears to be intended to cover the usual case in which a person cultivates ryoti land on the implied understanding that he

will, when asked to do so, pay the rent for it. In the vast majority of cases, on such cultivation, the landlord''s officials collect the usual rent and

unless action is taken with reference to the third explanation to Section 6 (1), the occupant in time acquires occupancy rights. If, however, the

landlord does not desire that the occupant should continue in occupation of this land, he may treat him as a trespasser, in which case, a machinery

is provided u/s 163 (A) whereby a suit may be filed and the landlord may claim mesne profits and also damages which are to be assessed on the

basis given in Section 163 and therefore must not exceed one year''s rent, subject to the proviso that in respect of any year for which rent has been

actually been paid damages would not be payable. As I read Section 163-A, it is not intended to provide a machinery for collecting mesne profits

from unauthorised occupants except as an incident of their eviction by suit. When as in the present case, the landlord has bought in the property at

a revenue sale either himself or through his agent, a machinery is provided whereby he can get delivery without suit, namely, by proceedings u/s

If he refrains from taking those proceedings, it is a reasonable inference that he is prepared to accept the rent and damages which can be

claimed u/s 163 from the actual occupant during the interval between the sale and the delivery. I doubt very much whether he can abstain from

taking action either u/s 124 or u/s 163 and file a suit u/s 163-A, after possession has been surrendered, for this section only relates to the eviction

of persons who have not been admitted as ryots whereas, the ordinary case of a sale under the Estates Land Act would relate to a person who has

been admitted as a ryot. Still less is it clear that the landlord, instead of recovering the rent and damages as laid down u/s 163, can treat Section

163-A as if it were split into two parts and having got possession without a suit can bring a separate suit merely for mesne profits. As I understand

these sections the underlying idea is that a person who has unauthorisedly occupied ryoti land and has not been evicted by a suit, shall be liable to

pay such sums as can be claimed u/s 163. A special remedy having been provided by the Act, whereby the landlord can recover compensation for

unauthorised occupation of ryoti lands in cases where a suit for eviction is unnecessary, it is not to my mind possible to claim in the ordinary civil

Courts a different remedy with an enhanced period of limitation for the same wrong. In any case, the present plaint, based as it is on an allegation

of a terminated tenancy and a joint trespass by a large number of people, including the former tenants, does not contain such averments as would

suffice to establish a claim of separate trespass by one only of these people under such circumstances as to take him out of the provisions of

Section 163.

The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs.